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 ten counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor—seven counts involved minors under the age of thirteen and three counts involved minors over thirteen—and four counts of intimidation of a witness. The convictions were based on the testimony of the four young victims describing the acts and threats made by the Defendant against them (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, arguing that there were discrepancies between the witnesses' trial testimony and their earlier statements. Additionally, contended that amendments to the indictment after the close of the State's evidence violated his due process right to notice of the charges against him (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the evidence, particularly the testimony of the four young victims, was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. Also contended that the amendments to the indictment did not prejudice the Defendant's substantial rights and were allowed to conform to the evidence presented (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor and intimidation of a witness (para 2).
• Whether the amendments to the indictment after the close of the State's evidence violated the Defendant's due process right to notice of the charges against him (para 3).

Disposition

• The district court’s judgment and sentence convicting the Defendant of ten counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and four counts of intimidation of a witness were affirmed (para 4).

Reasons

• KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, with SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge, and KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found that the Defendant did not specifically identify any element of the offenses as lacking supporting evidence and did not challenge the Court's understanding of the evidence or identify any legal error in the proposed analysis. The Court concluded that discrepancies between witnesses' testimonies and their earlier statements were a matter of credibility, which is for the fact-finder to resolve, and did not constitute grounds for reversal on appeal (para 2).
  Regarding the Defendant's contention about the amendments to the indictment, the Court determined that the Defendant did not demonstrate he was prejudiced by the amendments. The Court noted that changing the dates on the charges in the indictment did not create a new charge and that the Defendant failed to describe any prejudice suffered due to the amendment. The Court also found no indication that the Defendant identified any prejudice while before the district court, could not anticipate what he needed to investigate, or that he sought a continuance to address the amended charging periods. Without a showing of prejudice, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not demonstrate error (para 3).