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 accused of sexually assaulting a child under thirteen by blindfolding her, removing her clothes, tying her hands to a bed, and penetrating her with an unknown object. The Victim, who was seven years old at the time of the incident and thirteen at the time of the trial, testified that the Defendant committed the act and that her mother was present and received payment from the Defendant. The Defendant denied any wrongdoing and proposed an alternative perpetrator theory, suggesting the Victim confused him with another individual (para 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by concluding it could not compel a material witness (the Victim's mother) to testify after she was granted use immunity, which prevented the Defendant from presenting his defense (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Conceded the district court's error but argued that the Defendant had not shown prejudice and should not receive a new trial. Proposed either affirming the conviction or remanding for an in-camera proceeding to determine if the Defendant suffered prejudice (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining it could not compel a material witness to testify after granting her use immunity (para 7).
• Whether the Defendant demonstrated sufficient prejudice from this error to warrant a new trial (para 8-9).

Disposition

• The court reversed the Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial (para 18).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, Roderick Kennedy, and M. Monica Zamora, unanimously found that the district court erred in its determination that it lacked the authority to compel the Victim's mother to testify after granting her use immunity. This error was acknowledged by the State but was argued not to have caused prejudice to the Defendant. The court concluded that the error significantly impacted the Defendant's ability to present his defense, as indicated by the jury's inquiry about the mother's absence from the witness stand. The court rejected the State's suggestion for remand to determine prejudice, noting that the trial had already been completed and the importance of the mother's testimony was established when use immunity was granted. The court determined that there was a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict, necessitating a reversal of the convictions and a remand for a new trial (paras 7-17).