Opinion ID: 3163998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: George’s Appeal To The Court Of Appeals

Text: George appealed to the court of appeals,9 arguing in part that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for digital penetration during A.M.’s third-grade year.10 The court of appeals reviewed the record and concluded that “it appears (1) that the prosecutor was under a misimpression about the timing of the offense, and (2) that A.M.’s ensuing testimony was actually about events that occurred during her third-grade year.”11 The court of appeals summarized the facts as follows: 8 Count One was attempted sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree. George received a sentence of thirty years with ten years suspended. 9 George v. State, No. A-11028, 2014 WL 2937874, at  (Alaska App. June 25, 2014). 10 Id. at . 11 Id. (emphasis in original). -6- 7072 George was living with A.M.’s aunt. A.M. testified that her aunt used to babysit her . . . from the time she was quite young until her fourth[-]grade year . . . . A.M. further testified that, on the nights when she would stay at her aunt’s house, George would come into her bedroom and touch her. According to A.M., this touching started when she was four years old and continued until she reached the fourth grade . . . . A.M. testified that, when George touched her, he would sometimes reach inside her vagina. The prosecutor’s mistake about the time frame of this sexual activity was clarified later in A.M.’s testimony, when she described how George would make her engage in fellatio. The prosecutor asked A.M. if this had happened when she was in the fourth grade, but A.M. repeatedly told the prosecutor that it happened when she was in the third grade.[12] The court of appeals then quoted the same testimony we have quoted above13 and held that A.M. declared that the sexual abuse occurred when she was in the third grade . . . . Thus, viewing A.M.’s testimony as a whole, and in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jurors could reasonably conclude that George engaged in digital penetration of A.M. during . . . (September 2004 to May 2005).[14] The court of appeals thus affirmed George’s conviction on Count Ten.15 George petitioned for hearing, and we granted the petition. 12 Id. at -5. 13 See § II.B, supra. 14 George, 2014 WL 2937874, at . 15 Id. -7- 7072