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 criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree, involving a child under thirteen. The case arose from an incident where the Victim awoke to find the Defendant on top of her, discovered her undergarments removed, and felt something "awkward" on her genital area. The following morning, the Defendant instructed the Victim not to disclose the incident.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not excluding two of the State's witnesses despite late disclosure, claimed prejudice due to this late disclosure affecting plea consideration and trial preparation, and contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the late disclosure of witnesses did not prejudice the Defendant, argued that the delay in trial did not infringe upon the Defendant's right to a speedy trial, and asserted that the Victim's testimony provided sufficient evidence for the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to exclude two of the State's witnesses due to late disclosure.
• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Timothy L. Garcia, Cynthia A. Fry, and J. Miles Hanisee, provided the following reasons:
  Exclusion of Witnesses: The Court found no reversible error in the district court's decision not to exclude the State's witnesses, despite the late disclosure. The Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from this late disclosure that would warrant reversal (paras 2-3).
  Speedy Trial: The Court concluded that the Defendant did not experience a presumptively prejudicial delay that would necessitate an inquiry into other speedy trial factors. The period from the Defendant becoming an accused to the trial did not exceed the updated presumptively prejudicial period, thus the district court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds (paras 4-6).
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court determined that the Victim's testimony was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction. The testimony provided by the Victim regarding the incident was found to be credible and substantial enough to uphold the jury's verdict (para 7).
  The Court's decision to affirm the conviction was based on the lack of demonstrated prejudice from the late disclosure of witnesses, the absence of a presumptively prejudicial delay violating the Defendant's right to a speedy trial, and the sufficiency of evidence provided by the Victim's testimony (para 8).