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 charged with ten counts related to child abuse, criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), and criminal sexual penetration (CSP) against his daughter. The charges included allegations that the Defendant administered drugs to the victim, which were later not pursued due to negative laboratory test results for drugs. The Defendant sought to use a videotaped deposition of a laboratory technician to impeach the victim's credibility, which was denied by the district court. The jury found the Defendant guilty of all charges.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued for the admission of a videotaped deposition to impeach the victim's credibility, contended that his right to cross-examine the victim was denied, asserted incorrect jury instructions on CSCM charges, and claimed illegal sentencing on CSP charges.
• State: Conceded to several of Defendant's legal arguments, agreeing on the need for modification to the judgment and sentence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the admission of a videotaped deposition in lieu of live testimony.
• Whether the district court erred in limiting Defendant’s cross-examination of the victim to the charged offenses.
• Whether Defendant’s convictions of CSCM in the second degree should be vacated and remanded for entry of judgment and resentencing for CSCM in the third degree.
• Whether the district court erred in sentencing Defendant to fifteen years pursuant to his conviction on Count 3 of CSP.
• Whether the use of a prior jury instruction as to Count 7 of CSP amounted to reversible error.
• Whether the Defendant was denied his right to a fair trial when the district court judge declined to recuse herself.
• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for a change of venue.
• Whether there is cumulative error present in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to exclude the admission of the videotaped deposition was affirmed.
• The district court did not err in limiting Defendant’s cross-examination of the victim.
• Defendant’s convictions of CSCM in the second degree were vacated and remanded for entry of judgment and resentencing for CSCM in the third degree.
• The district court did not err in sentencing Defendant to fifteen years for CSP.
• The use of a prior jury instruction for Count 7 of CSP did not amount to reversible error.
• The district court judge did not err in declining to recuse herself.
• The district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a change of venue.
• No cumulative error was found in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Reasons

• The appellate court found that the Defendant's rights were not violated by the exclusion of the videotaped deposition or by the limitations on cross-examination. The court agreed with the Defendant and the State that there were errors in the jury instructions regarding the degrees of CSCM and in the sentencing for CSP, leading to a remand for correction. The court also found no reversible error in the use of an outdated jury instruction for CSP, no abuse of discretion by the district court judge in not recusing herself, and no abuse of discretion in denying a change of venue. The appellate court concluded that, despite some errors, the Defendant received a fair trial, and thus, there was no basis for cumulative error (paras 1-37).