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, Roger Leathers, was convicted of multiple charges involving sexual offenses against his niece, the Victim, including first and second-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP I and CSP II), attempted CSP I, second and third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM II and CSCM III), contributing to the delinquency of a minor, first and second-degree kidnapping, and bribery of a witness. The incidents occurred between the Victim's fifth and eighth birthdays, with the Defendant being charged for acts spanning from August 11, 2002, to August 10, 2005. The Victim testified that the Defendant would wake her up at night and take her to his room, where he committed the sexual offenses.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by allowing the Victim to hold a comfort toy while testifying, claimed violations of due process due to multiple charges over multiple periods, contended insufficient evidence for CSCM and kidnapping convictions, objected to the amendment of Count 1 of the indictment to change the method of penetration for CSP I, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Defended the trial court's decisions, including the allowance of the comfort toy for the Victim, the sufficiency of evidence for the charges, and the amendment of the indictment to accurately reflect the evidence presented at trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing the Victim to hold a comfort toy while testifying.
• Whether the Defendant’s right to due process was violated by the multiple charges over multiple charging periods.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence for the Defendant’s convictions for CSCM and kidnapping.
• Whether the district court improperly allowed the State to amend Count 1 of the indictment.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The court reversed the Defendant's convictions for two counts of CSCM II and two counts of CSCM III due to insufficient evidence.
• The court affirmed the Defendant's remaining convictions.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia (Michael D. Bustamante and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring): The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the Victim to hold a comfort toy during her testimony, considering her age and emotional state. The court determined that the Defendant's due process rights were not violated by the multiple charges over different periods, as the Defendant failed to preserve this claim for appeal. The court concluded there was insufficient evidence to support four of the CSCM convictions, specifically those charged in Counts 7, 9, 10, and 11, due to a lack of specificity regarding the timing of the alleged acts. The court upheld the amendment of Count 1 of the indictment to change the method of penetration from penile to digital, finding no prejudice to the Defendant. Lastly, the court did not find a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting the Defendant's failure to demonstrate how counsel's performance was deficient or how it prejudiced the defense.