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, Aaron Bahr, was convicted of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and two counts of attempted CSPM. The incidents involved the Defendant's stepdaughter, Y.B., and his biological daughter, I.B., while he was responsible for their care. Y.B. testified about two instances of attempted sexual assault by the Defendant and one instance where she witnessed the Defendant sexually assaulting I.B. The family's separation and subsequent events led to the Defendant's charges and trial (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction for CSPM and contended that the statute of limitations barred one of his convictions for attempted CSPM (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction for CSPM and argued that the statute of limitations for one of the attempted CSPM charges was tolled, making the prosecution timely (paras 12-13, 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for CSPM.
• Whether the statute of limitations barred the prosecution of one of the Defendant's convictions for attempted CSPM.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for one count of CSPM and two counts of attempted CSPM (para 1).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judges, concurring):
  Sufficient Evidence for CSPM Conviction: The court reviewed the evidence under the standard that requires viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict. It found that the testimony of Y.B., along with the circumstances surrounding the incident, provided sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that the Defendant committed CSPM against I.B. (paras 6-11).
  Statute of Limitations for Attempted CSPM: The court examined whether the statute of limitations for one of the attempted CSPM charges was tolled. It concluded that the statute of limitations was tolled due to the Defendant's absence from the state, making the prosecution timely. The court determined that the conduct underlying the charge occurred within the limitations period, based on the evidence presented at trial (paras 12-23).