AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of multiple charges related to sexual crimes against his daughter, including one count of kidnapping, nine counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor, seven counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor, one count of sexual exploitation of a child, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The incidents occurred while the family lived in a room at the Coachlight Inn and on a bus, with the Defendant engaging in various sexual acts with the Victim, who was nine years old at the time.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erroneously denied his motion for a bill of particulars, contending that the charges were not specific enough to allow for a meaningful defense. Additionally, argued that the evidence did not support the number of counts charged and that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated due to the admission of the Victim's videotaped deposition instead of live testimony. Also contended that certain drawings and a post-polygraph statement were improperly admitted into evidence.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Maintained that the Defendant's motion for a bill of particulars was correctly denied, arguing that the charges were adequately specific. The State also argued that there was substantial evidence to support the charges, that the admission of the videotaped deposition did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that the drawings and post-polygraph statement were properly admitted.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a bill of particulars.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict based on insufficient evidence.
• Whether the Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the admission of the Victim's videotaped deposition.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting certain drawings and a post-polygraph statement into evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions on all counts.

Reasons

• CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge (with MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court found that the Defendant's arguments regarding the bill of particulars and double jeopardy were either not preserved for appeal or insufficiently developed. It also held that there was substantial evidence to support the charges against the Defendant, thus negating the argument for a directed verdict. Regarding the Confrontation Clause, the court determined that the admission of the videotaped deposition was not a violation, given the Victim's fragility and the Defendant's ability to communicate with his attorney during the deposition. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the admission of the drawings and the post-polygraph statement, concluding that these were relevant to the case and properly authenticated.