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 February 28, 2010, Defendant Matthew Scott, then twenty years old, and S.M., a fourteen-year-old girl, were socializing at an acquaintance’s apartment with at least two other males present. S.M. consumed alcohol to the point of unconsciousness. Defendant and S.M. started kissing, and despite S.M. expressing she was a virgin and losing consciousness, Defendant claimed they had consensual sex. Later, Defendant, with a friend's help, transported the still unconscious S.M. to her home, leaving her in the driveway in heavy rain. S.M.'s sister found her unresponsive, leading to hospitalization where sexual assault was confirmed through injuries and DNA evidence matching Defendant (paras 3-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the first count of child abuse, challenged the jury instruction for the second count, and argued that the two convictions violated his right to be free from double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that sufficient evidence supported both child abuse convictions and that the jury instructions were proper, maintaining that the two convictions did not constitute double jeopardy (paras 14, 16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's first child abuse conviction.
• Whether the jury instruction associated with the second count of child abuse was proper.
• Whether the two convictions violated the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's conviction on the first count of child abuse.
• The court remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the Defendant's conviction on the second count of child abuse due to a violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy (paras 2, 23).

Reasons

• BOGARDUS, Judge, HANISEE, Judge, and VARGAS, Judge, concurring:
  The court found substantial evidence supporting the first child abuse conviction, including Defendant's reckless disregard for S.M.'s safety by leaving her unconscious and exposed to inclement weather, which created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to her health (paras 9-13).
  The court agreed with the Defendant's double jeopardy argument regarding the second conviction. It determined that the jury instruction for the second count of child abuse could have led jurors to convict Defendant of two crimes for the same offense, thus violating his right to be free from double jeopardy. The confusion stemmed from the jury instructions and the lack of clarity in distinguishing the conduct that constituted each count of child abuse (paras 14-21).
  Consequently, the court directed the district court to vacate the second conviction, affirming the first conviction based on the evidence presented at trial and the principles guiding the review of sufficiency of evidence (paras 22-23).