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 two counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP) of a minor under the age of thirteen and two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The charges stemmed from allegations that the Defendant engaged in unlawful sexual activities with a victim who was under thirteen years old at the time of the incidents.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions for CSP and CSCM. Additionally, contended that the district court erred in denying a motion for mistrial based on an improper prosecutorial comment during closing arguments. Initially raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but agreed it was better suited for a habeas corpus proceeding.
• Appellee (State): Maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial. Argued that the comment during closing arguments was based on evidence and was a permissible inference drawn from the evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for CSP and CSCM.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for mistrial based on an improper prosecutorial comment during closing arguments.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all counts.

Reasons

• Per WRAY, J. (HANISEE, C.J., and YOHALEM, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for CSP and CSCM. The victim's testimony provided substantial evidence of the Defendant's guilt, detailing the unlawful sexual activities (paras 3-5). Regarding the motion for mistrial, the Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The Court reasoned that the prosecutorial comment during closing arguments was brief, related to evidence presented at trial, and did not deprive the Defendant of a fair trial. The comment was addressed promptly by the trial court, which instructed the prosecutor to focus on the facts of the case, and the Defendant did not object to the lack of a curative instruction (paras 7-11).