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 multiple offenses against a minor, including criminal sexual penetration, criminal sexual contact, child abuse, and providing alcohol to a minor. The incidents occurred when the victim, a 15-year-old girl, was invited by the Defendant, a 19-year-old male, to his residence, where she was coerced into drinking alcohol and subsequently sexually assaulted by the Defendant and another male (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, November 26, 2019: Defendant was indicted on multiple charges related to the sexual assault of a minor (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that five of his convictions were barred by the statute of limitations, that his convictions violated double jeopardy protections, and that errors in jury selection and instruction constituted reversible error (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of the first indictment and that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy. The State also argued against the alleged jury-related errors (paras 12-13, 30, 39).
Legal Issues
- Whether the statute of limitations barred prosecution for certain convictions (para 9).
- Whether the Defendant's convictions violated double jeopardy protections (para 30).
- Whether errors in jury selection and instruction constituted reversible error (para 40).
Disposition
- The court vacated the Defendant's third- and fourth-degree felony convictions due to the statute of limitations (para 29).
- The court vacated the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor due to double jeopardy (para 38).
- The court remanded the case for the district court to vacate either the primary or alternate charges in Counts 1 and 2 and to resentence the Defendant (para 39).
- The court found no reversible error in jury selection and instruction (paras 47, 50).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Duffy and Wray JJ. concurring):
The court found that the statute of limitations barred prosecution for certain third- and fourth-degree felonies because the second indictment was filed beyond the five-year limit, and no statutory or nonstatutory tolling applied (paras 9-29). The court also determined that the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor were unitary with the criminal sexual penetration charges, thus violating double jeopardy protections (paras 30-38). Regarding jury-related claims, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a juror for cause or in refusing to give a curative instruction, as the prosecutor's statement was accurate and not emphasized (paras 47-50). The court concluded that there was no cumulative error (para 51).