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 for one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) under the age of thirteen. The incident involved the Defendant, who is the uncle of the Victim, and allegedly occurred when the Victim was sleeping over at his house after he came home from drinking. The Victim, who was eleven at the time, testified about the incident, accusing the Defendant of committing the offense. There was conflicting testimony regarding whether the Victim knew another uncle, but no testimony contradicted her account of the incident (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of CSCM. Additionally, sought to amend the docketing statement to include an issue regarding the district court's alleged error in allowing hearsay testimony from the Victim's mother about the Victim's diagnosis of PTSD over the defense's objection (paras 1-2, 3).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for CSCM. Opposed the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement regarding the hearsay testimony issue (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for CSCM.
• Whether the district court erred by allowing hearsay testimony from the Victim's mother about the Victim's alleged diagnosis of PTSD over the defense's objection (paras 1-2, 3).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The Defendant’s conviction was affirmed (para 1, 7).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, J. Miles Hanisee, and Jacqueline R. Medina, unanimously decided to affirm the Defendant's conviction. The Court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate that the evidentiary issue he sought to raise regarding hearsay testimony was viable, noting the Defendant's failure to provide sufficient details about the objectionable testimony and the district court's handling of the objection. The Court also concluded that even if the hearsay testimony about PTSD was admitted over objection, the Defendant did not establish a reasonable probability that this testimony affected the verdict, given the other evidence presented, including the Victim's testimony and observed changes in her behavior post-incident (paras 2-4).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court referenced the legislative provision that the testimony of a victim of CSCM need not be corroborated and is entitled to the same weight as the testimony of victims of other crimes. The Court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence on appeal nor substitute its judgment for that of the jury. It held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for CSCM, as the jury's determination regarding the weight and credibility of the testimony was within its purview (paras 5-6).