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 penetration (CSP) in the third degree. The conviction stemmed from an incident on February 17, 2013, where the Defendant was accused of engaging in sexual intercourse with the Victim through the use of physical force or violence. The Defendant argued that the sexual act was consensual and suggested that the Victim fabricated the accusation to gain an advantage in a child custody dispute.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for CSP, emphasizing that the jury's findings were based on substantial evidence of the Defendant's use of physical force or violence.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, arguing that the sex was consensual and that the Victim's testimony was fabricated to benefit her in a child custody dispute. The Defendant also sought to introduce issues related to the Victim's violation of a restraining order and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for CSP in the third degree.
• Whether the district court erred in restricting defense counsel from cross-examining the Victim about her violations of the restraining order.
• Whether the Defendant's trial counsel was ineffective, particularly in the handling of cross-examination and impeachment attempts.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the conviction. The Court also remanded the case for correction of a clerical error in the amended judgment and sentence to reflect the correct date of the crime.

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge James J. Wechsler authoring the opinion and Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that there was ample evidence to support the jury's findings of the Defendant's guilt based on the use of physical force or violence (para 2). The Court found the Defendant's arguments regarding consent and the Victim's credibility to be matters for the jury to weigh and determine (para 3). On the issue of the restraining order, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding references to the restraining order due to the Defendant's failure to introduce it into evidence (para 5). Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court determined that the Defendant did not demonstrate that counsel's performance prejudiced the defense to a degree that would warrant a different outcome (para 6-7).