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 (CSCM) and attempted CSCM. The case involved allegations that the Defendant touched the victim inappropriately, with the victim testifying that the Defendant repeated the touching even after she attempted to turn away, stopping only when an alarm clock sounded.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State failed to establish intent for the conviction of attempted CSCM, contending the evidence was insufficient to prove intent. Additionally, the Defendant challenged the jury instruction on attempted CSCM as flawed and raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on several alleged failures by trial counsel.
• Appellee (State): Presented evidence supporting each element of the offenses charged, including circumstantial evidence to infer intent for the attempted CSCM charge. The State also argued against the Defendant's challenges to the jury instructions and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State provided sufficient evidence to establish the Defendant's intent for the conviction of attempted CSCM.
• Whether the jury instruction on attempted CSCM was flawed.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for CSCM and attempted CSCM.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Stephen G. French concurring, provided the following reasons for their decision:
  Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found that circumstantial evidence, including the victim's testimony, was sufficient to support an inference of intent to commit CSCM, thus rejecting the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence (paras 2-3).
  Jury Instruction: The Court determined that the jury instruction on attempted CSCM was not fundamentally flawed. It noted that the elements of the intended offense (CSCM) were adequately presented to the jury, and any potential confusion regarding the identity of the victim was minimized by the clarity of the parties and the district court, as well as the closing statements (paras 5-8).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court concluded that the Defendant did not establish a prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel. It reasoned that counsel's decisions regarding severance and the handling of evidence and witnesses could be seen as strategic, and the record did not sufficiently demonstrate that these decisions were unreasonable or prejudicial to the Defendant's defense (paras 9-12).
  The Court's decision to affirm the convictions was based on the adequacy of the circumstantial evidence presented, the determination that the jury instructions were not fundamentally erroneous, and the lack of a prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel.