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). The case involved testimony from an investigating detective and a forensic interviewer, which the Defendant argued was improperly admitted as it relied on specialized knowledge and improperly vouched for the credibility of the victim. The victim reported the incident a month after it occurred, a delay referred to as "delayed reporting," which is common in cases involving young children.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the testimony by the investigating detective and the forensic interviewer was improperly admitted into evidence because it relied on specialized knowledge and improperly vouched for the victim's credibility. Acknowledged that these assertions of error were unpreserved and sought review for plain error (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the statements made by each witness regarding delayed reporting were expert testimony but argued that the admission of the testimony did not rise to plain error because both witnesses were qualified through their experience and specialized knowledge in their respective fields (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the testimony of the investigating detective and the forensic interviewer was improperly admitted as it relied on specialized knowledge and improperly vouched for the credibility of the victim.
• Whether the Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his counsel's failure to object to the testimony of the detective and the forensic interviewer.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the Defendant's conviction for CSCM.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for CSCM (para 20).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge Megan P. Duffy, and Judge Gerald E. Baca, provided the following reasons for their decision:
  Admission of Evidence: The Court found no plain error in the admission of testimony from the investigating detective and the forensic interviewer. Both witnesses were deemed to have sufficient experience and specialized knowledge to testify on delayed disclosure, which did not constitute improper vouching for the victim's credibility (paras 4-9).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court concluded that the Defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel. It was suggested that the Defendant's trial counsel might have had a rational strategy for not objecting to the testimony, and it was unlikely that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the objections been made (paras 12-15).
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for CSCM, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. The testimony of the victim was considered sufficient to establish that the Defendant committed CSCM (paras 16-19).