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

• On December 18, 2009, A.B., a thirteen-year-old, attended a family dinner and sleepover with her maternal aunt, the aunt's husband (Defendant), and their two sons. During the evening, Defendant grabbed A.B.'s buttock and later, while she was sleeping, touched her genitals and made a lewd comment. The next day, Defendant asked A.B. if she would tell anyone about the incident, in the presence of his son and A.B.'s father, but lied about the context when questioned. A.B. disclosed the assault to her father after six months, leading to legal action (paras 3-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated, the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) and intimidation of a witness (paras 2, 8, 18, 28).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the delay in trial was largely attributable to the defense, and that there was sufficient evidence to support all convictions (paras 12, 13, 29-33).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for CSCM.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for intimidation of a witness.

Disposition

• The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. Specifically, the CSCM convictions were vacated, and the case was remanded for entry of a guilty judgment on two counts of simple battery and resentencing on those counts. The judgment and sentence for intimidating a witness were affirmed (para 34).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, analyzed the Defendant's claims under the framework of the Barker v. Wingo factors for speedy trial claims, finding that while the delay was presumptively prejudicial, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and the lack of demonstrated prejudice did not support a violation of the right to a speedy trial (paras 8-17). On the sufficiency of evidence for CSCM, the Court agreed with the Defendant, finding no substantial evidence that he used his position of authority to coerce A.B. into submitting to the sexual contacts, thus vacating the CSCM convictions but remanding for entry of judgment on lesser included offenses of simple battery (paras 18-27). However, the Court disagreed with the Defendant on the sufficiency of evidence for intimidating a witness, finding that his actions the morning after the incident could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to prevent A.B. from reporting the crime, thus affirming the conviction (paras 28-33).