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 case involves the Defendant, Tanner Autrey, who was convicted for crimes committed against a twenty-one-year-old married woman, referred to as Victim, whom he had known since their teenage years. The incident occurred in December 2016, where after a period of communication and previous non-consensual sexual encounters, Victim agreed to meet Defendant at his home. A struggle ensued when Victim attempted to leave, leading to her being forcibly taken to Defendant's bedroom, where she was undressed, choked, struck, spat on, and her hands were duct-taped behind her back. Defendant then committed various sexual offenses against Victim, including vaginal penetration, attempted anal penetration, and attempted oral penetration. The ordeal lasted about four hours, with the rape occurring towards the end (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his convictions for criminal sexual penetration (CSP) and kidnapping violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Additionally, contended that the district court erred in permitting evidence of his post-indictment flight, unconstitutionally limited evidence of Victim’s past sexual conduct, and that the jury’s deliberation late into the night deprived him of a fair trial (paras 5, 20-22).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the convictions for CSP and first-degree kidnapping do not violate double jeopardy, arguing that the kidnapping was completed when Defendant restrained Victim prior to committing a sexual offense and that multiple distinct sexual acts inflicted on Victim over an extended period of time support separate convictions. Also argued against the claims regarding evidence of post-indictment flight and limitations on evidence of Victim's past sexual conduct (paras 12, 13, 20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for CSP and first-degree kidnapping violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of Defendant's post-indictment flight.
• Whether the district court unconstitutionally limited evidence of Victim’s past sexual conduct.
• Whether the jury’s deliberation late into the night deprived the Defendant of a fair trial (paras 5, 20-22).

Disposition

• The court concluded that the Defendant’s convictions for CSP and first-degree kidnapping violate the prohibition against double jeopardy and remanded to the district court to vacate the lesser conviction of CSP. The court otherwise affirmed the Defendant's convictions, finding no merit in the additional claims of error (paras 23-24).

Reasons

• The court, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Shammara H. Henderson and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, found that the conduct underlying the Defendant’s convictions for CSP and first-degree kidnapping was unitary, as the elements of first-degree kidnapping were not satisfied until a sexual offense was committed. The court applied the two-part test from Swafford v. State, considering whether the conduct underlying the offenses is unitary and whether the Legislature intended to punish the offenses separately. The court agreed with the Defendant that punishing for both CSP and kidnapping violates double jeopardy, referencing the decision in State v. Serrato, which addressed a substantially identical claim. The court also addressed and dismissed the Defendant's additional claims regarding evidence of post-indictment flight, limitations on evidence of Victim's past sexual conduct, and the timing of the jury's deliberation, finding no basis for reversal (paras 6-22).