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, Gerald Notah, who was convicted for attempting to commit second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) under thirteen years of age. The incident occurred in December 2016 when the Victim, a seven-year-old, was being babysat by her grandmother and the Defendant, her step-grandfather. The Victim testified that the Defendant entered her room, partially undressed her and himself, and engaged in inappropriate behavior while touching her non-intimate parts. The Defendant, however, denied these allegations, claiming his actions were innocent and misconstrued (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of McKinley County: Convicted the Defendant of attempt to commit second-degree CSCM under thirteen years of age and sentenced him to sex offender probation and parole, which was later identified as an illegal sentence.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence for his conviction, the district court erred by denying a jury instruction for a lesser included offense, the jury instruction for second-degree CSCM constituted fundamental error, and his sentence to sex offender probation was illegal (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the district court erred in sentencing the Defendant to sex offender probation and parole and contended that the district court also imposed an illegal sentence by not adhering to the minimum required incarceration period under the Criminal Sentencing Act (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for attempt to commit second-degree CSCM under thirteen years of age.
• Whether the district court erred by denying a jury instruction for a lesser included offense of attempt to commit third-degree CSCM under thirteen years of age.
• Whether the jury instruction for second-degree CSCM under thirteen years of age constituted fundamental error.
• Whether the Defendant's sentence to sex offender probation and parole was illegal.

Disposition

• The Court reversed the Defendant's sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing, affirming the conviction on all other counts (para 40).

Reasons

• Sufficient Evidence: The Court found that the testimony provided by the Victim, corroborated by the Defendant's admission to the Victim's father, constituted substantial evidence supporting the conviction (paras 6-11).
  Lesser Included Offense: The Court concluded that third-degree CSCM under thirteen years of age is not a lesser included offense of second-degree CSCM under thirteen years of age, as the statutory elements of the crimes differ significantly. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the Defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense (paras 12-22).
  Jury Instruction: The Court determined that the jury instruction did not amount to fundamental error. The instruction was consistent with the applicable Uniform Jury Instruction, and any potential error was deemed technical and not substantial enough to warrant fundamental error review (paras 23-29).
  Illegal Sentence: The Court agreed with the parties that sentencing the Defendant to sex offender probation and parole was incorrect, as attempt to commit CSCM is not listed among the offenses triggering such sentencing under the relevant statutes. Additionally, the Court found that the district court imposed an illegal sentence by not adhering to the mandatory minimum incarceration period for a sexual offense against a child under the Criminal Sentencing Act (paras 30-39).