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

• In April 2015, a 12-year-old Victim attended a sleepover at her friend K.O.'s house, where K.O.'s father, Defendant Colin O’Keefe, also resided. During the night, Victim awoke to O’Keefe rubbing her back under her shirt and later leading her to his room, where he engaged in inappropriate sexual contact. This contact included O’Keefe touching Victim's buttocks and genital area. The incident was reported to the police by Victim's mother after being informed by K.O.'s mother, who learned of the incident from K.O. (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and that the district court erred by excluding evidence of Victim’s prior sexual abuse allegation, which was relevant to demonstrate that Victim might have confused the incident with a previous experience.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that one of the CSCM convictions should be vacated on double jeopardy grounds but maintained that the exclusion of evidence regarding Victim's prior sexual abuse allegation was proper under the rape shield law.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's two convictions for CSCM violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's constitutional rights by excluding evidence of Victim’s prior sexual abuse allegation.

Disposition

• One of Defendant’s CSCM convictions is reversed on double jeopardy grounds.
• The district court's decision to exclude evidence of Victim’s prior sexual abuse allegation is affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, with Judges B. Zamora, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Zachary A. Ives concurring, found that:
  On Double Jeopardy: The two CSCM convictions arose from a single continuous course of conduct without sufficient indicia of distinctness, such as an intervening event or a lapse in time, thus violating the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy. The Court decided to vacate one of the CSCM convictions (paras 7-10).
  On Prior Allegations of Sexual Abuse: The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of Victim's prior sexual abuse allegation. The Defendant failed to establish the relevance of the prior allegation to the current case, as required under the rape shield law and the Confrontation Clause. The Court found no evidence that Victim confused the two incidents and noted the absence of expert testimony to support the Defendant's claims regarding Victim's mental state. Therefore, the exclusion of this evidence did not violate the Defendant's rights to confront witnesses or present a complete defense (paras 11-21).