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 four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree involving a child under 13. The case involved evidence that both the Defendant and the Victim had the genital herpes simplex type I virus.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not excluding references to both the Defendant and Victim having the genital herpes simplex type I virus, asserting the evidence was more prejudicial than probative due to the lack of DNA strain comparison.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence of both the Defendant and Victim having the genital herpes simplex type I virus was relevant and probative, and that the Defendant had the opportunity to challenge the lack of DNA strain comparison before the jury.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to exclude references to both the Defendant and Victim having the genital herpes simplex type I virus.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to allow inquiry into the Victim’s prior allegations of sexual contact.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on both legal issues.

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J. (LINDA M. VANZI, J., TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the evidence of both the Defendant and Victim having the genital herpes simplex type I virus was relevant and probative, citing the district court's broad discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence. The Court noted that the Defendant was not precluded from highlighting the absence of DNA strain comparison evidence to the jury. Regarding the Defendant's motion to allow inquiry into the Victim’s prior allegations of sexual contact, the Court distinguished the present case from precedent, concluding that the circumstances did not warrant admission of the prior allegations under the recognized five-factor test. The Court also noted that the Defendant was permitted to inquire about the Victim's statements regarding other alleged assaults during a safehouse interview, which occurred on the same day as the assault by the Defendant.