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

• A 19-year-old Defendant, Jose Ivan Felix, engaged in a voluntary encounter with a 13-year-old Victim, I.G., involving mutual touching, kissing, and hugging. During this encounter, the Defendant "grabbed" the Victim's hand and "guided" it under his shorts but over his underwear, onto his erect penis. The Victim testified that she did not pull away during the "hand-guiding" but removed her hand when she felt his penis. The Victim also stated that she was not threatened or scared of the Defendant, nor did he make her do anything against her will (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to present substantial evidence of "physical force" as required for the conviction of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding the element of force in the jury instruction and the statute (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Maintained that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove the element of "physical force" for the Defendant’s conviction of CSCM, emphasizing the involuntary nature of the Victim's contact with the Defendant's penis as constituting "physical force" (paras 3, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence of "physical force" to sustain the Defendant's conviction for fourth-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for one count of CSCM, a fourth-degree felony (para 11).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge Stephen G. French authoring the opinion and Judges James J. Wechsler and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction. The Court applied a standard of review that resolves disputed facts in favor of the State and indulges all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict. It found that the Defendant's act of "hand-guiding" the Victim's hand to his clothed penis constituted "physical force," separate from the initial grabbing of the hand. This conclusion was based on the testimony that the touching was not volitional and involved two distinct physical actions by the Defendant: grabbing and guiding the hand. The Court distinguished this case from State v. Huff, noting that issues of consent are legally irrelevant in cases involving minors. The Court concluded that the evidence of Defendant guiding Victim’s hand provides sufficient support for the "physical force" element, despite the Defendant respecting the Victim's wishes to remove his hand during the encounter (paras 3-10).