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, the live-in boyfriend of the Victim's mother and caretaker of four children, was accused of inappropriately touching the Victim, an eight-year-old girl, in February 2009. The Victim reported the incident at school, leading to an investigation, interviews, and the Defendant's subsequent police station interview. The Defendant was convicted of two counts of second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Roosevelt County, Drew D. Tatum, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, April 23, 2013, No. 34,023.
• Released for Publication June 18, 2013.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the Defendant failed to preserve certain arguments for appellate review, contended that the rule of completeness does not apply as the transcript was not introduced into evidence, and opposed the motion for disclosure of CYFD records related to allegations of abuse by Victim.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit the transcript of the police station interview, erred in failing to order disclosure of CYFD records, argued that the district court’s grant of the State’s motion in limine violated his due process rights, claimed insufficient evidence for two convictions of CSCM, and argued that the cumulative effect of errors deprived him of a fair trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding the transcript of Defendant’s police station interview without first reviewing the transcript in redacted form.
• Whether the district court erred in failing to conduct an in camera review of CYFD records sought by Defendant.
• Whether Defendant’s due process rights were violated by the district court’s grant of the State’s motion in limine.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support two convictions for CSCM.
• Whether the district court improperly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the statements he made in the police station interview.
• Whether the cumulative effect of errors deprived Defendant of a fair trial.

Disposition

• The court held that the district court erred by not reviewing the redacted transcript of Defendant's police station interview but found the error harmless.
• The court remanded for district court review of CYFD records to determine if any portion of the records is material to the charges or the defense against them.
• The court found no reversible error in Defendant's other assertions.

Reasons

• The court concluded that the district court and the State were fairly on notice of Defendant’s assertion regarding the admissibility of the transcript under the rule of completeness (paras 7-12).
  The court determined that the district court failed to properly consider Defendant’s motion to admit the transcript and that excluding the transcript without reviewing it in redacted form was an abuse of discretion. However, this error was deemed harmless after review of the transcript (paras 13-23).
  The court found that the district court erred by not conducting an in camera review of CYFD records related to prior allegations of abuse by Victim, as Defendant had shown circumstances indicating the records may contain information material to his defense (paras 24-32).
  The court did not find sufficient grounds to reverse the convictions based on the other issues raised by Defendant, including the sufficiency of evidence for the CSCM convictions and the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress statements made during the police interview (paras 33-48).
  The cumulative effect of errors was not deemed to have deprived Defendant of a fair trial (para 50).