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 of criminal sexual contact of a minor, specifically touching his girlfriend’s ten-year-old daughter inappropriately between March and November 2015. The conviction was based on testimonial evidence from the victim, a detective, and the defendant himself. The jury found the defendant guilty after a trial where issues arose regarding witness exclusion, expert testimony on delayed reporting, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The defendant argued that the district court improperly excluded his witnesses, erred by allowing a lay witness to testify on "delayed reporting" among victims, denied him effective assistance of counsel, and that the cumulative errors required reversal of his conviction.
• Appellee: The State contended that the exclusion of the defendant's witnesses was justified due to late notice violating procedural rules, that the lay witness's testimony on delayed reporting was permissible, and that the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the defendant's witnesses.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing a lay witness to testify about "delayed reporting" among victims.
• Whether the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the cumulative errors require reversal of the conviction.

Disposition

• The appellate court affirmed the defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• The appellate court, per Judge M. Monica Zamora, provided the following reasons:
  Regarding the exclusion of witnesses: The court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in excluding the defendant's witnesses due to late notice and potential prejudice to the State's case (paras 4-10).
  On the issue of "delayed reporting" testimony: The court determined that the detective's testimony did not constitute plain error, as it did not create grave doubts about the validity of the verdict considering the overall evidence, including the defendant's admissions (paras 11-19).
  Concerning ineffective assistance of counsel: The court concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of ineffective assistance, noting that even if counsel's performance was deficient, there was no reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different (paras 20-24).
  On cumulative error: The court found no cumulative error warranting reversal, as the individual claims of error were not substantiated (para 25).
  The appellate court's decision was concurred by Judges Julie J. Vargas and Jacqueline R. Medina.