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 by a jury for one count of third-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP) and one count of voyeurism. The charges stemmed from an incident where the Defendant allegedly had sexual intercourse with the Victim while she was unconscious, asleep, or physically helpless, and recorded the act without her consent (paras 1, 8-9, 11).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court's denial of his motion to change venue was an abuse of discretion, the evidence failed to support his two convictions, and his convictions violate double jeopardy protections (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to change venue was an abuse of discretion.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for CSP and voyeurism.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for CSP and voyeurism violate double jeopardy protections.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the Defendant's convictions for third-degree criminal sexual penetration and voyeurism (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Katherine A. Wray, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Jane B. Yohalem, provided the following reasons for their decision:
  Regarding the change of venue: The Court found that any error by the district court in denying the change of venue motion was moot because an unbiased jury was seated, rendering the issue moot (paras 4-6).
  Sufficiency of the evidence: The Court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdicts for both CSP and voyeurism. This conclusion was based on the jury instructions, the video clip played for the jury, testimonies from the Victim and a witness, and a text message from the Defendant to the Victim (paras 7-11).
  Double jeopardy: The Court concluded that the Defendant's convictions for CSP and voyeurism did not violate double jeopardy protections. This was based on a determination that each offense required proof of an element that the other did not, under the State's theory of the case, and thus the Legislature intended to permit punishment for each of the Defendant's convictions (paras 12-15).