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 case involves the Defendant, Rollie Bruvold, who was convicted for seven counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) involving his youngest daughter, C.B. The evidence presented at trial included testimony from C.B., her sister Jana, and their mother. C.B. testified to specific instances of sexual abuse by the Defendant starting when she was four or five years old and ending in 2002 after she turned thirteen. The abuse included various acts of sexual penetration and oral sex. The Defendant was primarily responsible for homeschooling C.B. and her siblings after withdrawing them from public school. The Defendant admitted to sexual activity with C.B. but characterized it as "family-type stuff, family interaction" (paras 2-9).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the circumstantial evidence and the testimony provided were sufficient to support the convictions for CSPM, emphasizing the Defendant's grooming behavior and the context suggesting that the abuse occurred when C.B. was under the age of thirteen (paras 15-16).
• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, specifically that it did not conclusively show that C.B. was under the age of thirteen for each of the seven counts of CSPM (para 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for seven counts of CSPM, particularly regarding the victim's age at the time of the offenses (para 11).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed one of the Defendant’s convictions for CSPM and reversed and vacated the remaining six convictions. The case was remanded to the district court for resentencing (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Linda M. Vanzi, and J. Miles Hanisee, concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support only one of the Defendant's seven CSPM convictions. The Court found that while C.B.'s testimony about the start of the abuse could lead a reasonable juror to infer that at least one incident occurred when she was under thirteen, the evidence for the remaining six counts was insufficient. The Court noted the lack of specific timeframes for the abuse and the reliance on circumstantial evidence that required speculation and conjecture. The Court distinguished this case from precedent by highlighting the absence of benchmark events in C.B.'s life that could establish a timeline for the abuse. The Court criticized the State's reliance on the nature of the activities C.B. was engaged in during the incidents (playing with toys, using markers) as insufficient to establish her age. The Court also found the evidence of grooming and C.B.'s sexual activity with a neighbor boy insufficient to support the conclusion that all charged CSPMs occurred before C.B. turned thirteen (paras 13-21).