State v Carrell

Carrell appealed his aggravated child sex abuse convictions. The panel affirmed. It held the district court properly gave the indecent liberties instruction as video evidence showed Carrell touching the victims near their genitals or buttocks, kissing them and having one of them sit on his lap and properly included touching one of the victims on the buttocks as video evidence of such touching was introduced. It held there was no error in how the jury was instructed about the required mental states as they were legally correct and informed the jury that the touching must be intentional and done with intent to arouse. It finally held that also held the evidence was sufficient because one victim’s testimony was correctly admitted as it was consistent and even if not there was nothing to indicate it was inherently improbable and when combined with the video evidence and testimony of the victim’s fathers the jury could find Carrell guilty of the counts for which he was convicted.

State v Jack

Jack appealed his communications fraud conviction arguing it should have merged into his vulnerable adult exploitation convictions. The panel affirmed. It held there is no statutory merger as communications fraud requires elements beyond the elements of vulnerable adult exploitation and there is no common law merger because concealment by use of altered receipts is not inherent in the exploitation and the fraud charge covered additional victims.

Paulsen v Paulsen

Husband appealed denial of his motion to end alimony. The panel affirmed in part, vacated and remanded. It held summary judgment was properly denied as wife’s payoff of the mortgage on her house was foreseeable under the decree and husband failed to prove wife’s living expenses. The order reducing alimony was vacated because the district court used incorrect figures for wife’s income and expenses, failed to treat the mortgage payoff as foreseeable made inconsistent findings and failed to evaluate the parties’ standard of living during their marriage.

State v Perry

Perry appealed the district court order finding him component to try. The panel affirmed. It held the record as a whole demonstrated the district court placed the burden of proof on the state as required by statute. It held the district court permissibly found Perry rationally understood the punishment specified for the charges against him as the evaluator stated in her report that she told Perry the possible punishments including a potential life sentence for rape and that Perry accurately assessed his situation. It held the order was ambiguous as to whether the competency finding was conditional on reasonable accommodation and construed it to not be conditional based on the district court’s adoption of an expert report which stated Perry was competent and accommodations were only needed to maximize Perry’s capacities, no evidence was presented which supports a finding of conditional competence and the district court’s discussion of how stress makes it harder for Perry to participate did not indicate a finding that eh stress will render Perry incompetent.

Anderson v Anderson

Husband appealed the district court order changing wife’s alimony and awarding her attorney fees. The panel reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part. It affirmed as to the imputed income calculation as husband failed to provide any reasoned analysis on the issue. It held that including wife’s future car loan and health insurance expenses in the alimony calculation was supported by the record, but including her retirement contributions was error under Court precedent and remanded for recalculation of alimony with the contributions removed. It held husband inadequately briefed his argument that alimony should have been reduced by child support payments. It affirmed the attorney fee ward as the district court considered the required factors and permissibly concluded fees were proper here. The panel remanded for calculation of wife’s fees incurred on appeal.

State v Farnsworth

Farnsworth appealed his aggravated assault and other convictions arising from road rage incident. The panel affirmed. It held any error in admitting a 911 recording about the road rage incident was harmless given testimony from the victims, three disinterested witnesses, a defense witness and Farnsworth’s wife that Farnsworth was the aggressor, swerved into the lane victims’ motorcycle was, made contact with the motorcycle an left the scene at high speed all of which proved the elements of eth various convictions independent of the 911 call. It there was no ineffective assistance of counsel as to a reckless driving conviction because there was evidence that Farnsworth speed twice and ran a stop signed within three miles and thus it would have been futile to object to the three offense in three mile reckless driving jury instruction and a merger argument would have failed as there was evidence to sustain the assault and reckless driving convictions on separate facts.

In the Interests of M.R., A.R.C. and N.R. (F.C. v State)

F.C. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed holding F.C. never raised the Americans with Disabilities Act below and the finding that the state made reasonable efforts to provide reunification efforts was supported by evidence she received psychological evaluations, drug tests, therapy and 70 weeks of individual parent child interaction therapy with interpreter help.