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 one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor. The conviction was based on the victim's testimony, which included allegations of inappropriate touching. The Defendant contested the sufficiency of the evidence and raised issues regarding the admissibility of testimony about an uncharged incident.
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County: The Defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in allowing the victim to testify about an uncharged incident, claiming insufficient notice of the testimony. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. The Defendant also argued that the State improperly construed his statement of not remembering the incident as an admission.
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the defense had sufficient notice of the victim's testimony as it was part of the narrative provided before trial. The State maintained that the victim's testimony was sufficient to support the conviction and that it was permissible to comment on the Defendant's statement.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in admitting the victim's testimony about an uncharged incident without sufficient notice to the defense?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor?
- Did the State improperly construe the Defendant's statement as an admission?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Kennedy and Vigil JJ. concurring):
- The Court found that the district court did not err in admitting the victim's testimony about the uncharged incident. The defense had sufficient notice of the testimony as it was part of the victim's narrative provided before trial. The Defendant's argument regarding the rationale for admitting the evidence was not preserved at trial and was therefore not addressed.
- The Court held that the victim's testimony, despite inconsistencies, was sufficient to support the conviction. It was the jury's role to reconcile the inconsistencies and assess the credibility of the testimony. The victim's statement that the Defendant touched his penis was sufficient evidence.
- The Court concluded that the State's interpretation of the Defendant's statement as an admission was permissible. The State is allowed to comment on evidence, and a failure to remember an incident does not constitute a denial.