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 accused of multiple instances of criminal sexual contact with a minor, specifically his stepdaughter, between 1986 and 1987. The allegations included inappropriate touching and voyeuristic behavior, such as using a peephole to spy on the victim. The victim reported the incidents to her mother, who confronted the Defendant multiple times, leading to denials and apologies. The mother eventually reported the incidents to the police in 2002 (paras 2-12).
Procedural History
- District Court, April 17, 2003: The Defendant was convicted of three counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and acquitted of one count. The court dismissed nine other counts due to insufficient evidence (paras 8, 16).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the unlawfulness of the alleged touchings, claiming they were innocent and non-sexual. Additionally, the Defendant challenged the admission of the peephole evidence as improper under Rule 11-404(B) and raised issues regarding the statute of limitations and speedy trial rights (paras 17, 20-22, 36-42).
- State: Contended that the evidence, including the victim's testimony, the Defendant's apologies, and the peephole evidence, demonstrated the unlawfulness of the touchings. The State also argued that the Defendant "opened the door" to the admission of the peephole evidence by presenting testimony suggesting the touchings were innocent (paras 19, 22, 31).
Legal Issues
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor?
- Was the admission of the peephole evidence proper under Rule 11-404(B)?
- Did the statute of limitations bar prosecution for some of the alleged offenses?
- Was the Defendant's right to a speedy trial violated?
- Was the jury instruction on unlawfulness proper?
Disposition
- The Defendant's convictions were reversed due to the improper admission of the peephole evidence (para 34).
- The case was remanded for retrial (para 34).
Reasons
Per A. Joseph Alarid J. (Bustamante C.J. and Castillo J. concurring):
Sufficiency of Evidence: The court found that the evidence, including the victim's testimony, the Defendant's apologies, and the peephole evidence, was sufficient to support the convictions. However, the improper admission of the peephole evidence necessitated reversal (paras 19, 34).
Improper Admission of Peephole Evidence: The court held that the peephole evidence was improperly admitted under Rule 11-404(B). The evidence was used to infer the Defendant's propensity for sexual misconduct, which is prohibited. The court disavowed prior case law allowing such evidence under a "lewd and lascivious disposition" exception, finding it inconsistent with Rule 11-404 (paras 20-30).
Statute of Limitations: The court noted that the statute of limitations barred prosecution for touchings occurring before June 19, 1987. On remand, the jury must be instructed to distinguish between time-barred and non-time-barred offenses (paras 36-41).
Speedy Trial: The court determined that the thirteen-month delay was presumptively prejudicial for a case of intermediate complexity. On remand, the district court must evaluate the speedy trial claim under the Barker v. Wingo factors (paras 42-44).
Jury Instruction on Unlawfulness: The court found that the Defendant waived any claim of error regarding the jury instruction by agreeing to its language during trial (paras 45-46).
The court concluded that the improper admission of the peephole evidence was not harmless and likely influenced the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the convictions were vacated, and the case was remanded for retrial (paras 33-34).