Botelho, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee. Following Anchorate jury trial in the superior court, Harold "Frenchy" Braun was convicted of three counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, AS Braun now appeals these convictions.
With regard to the sexual abuse charges, Braun argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We affirm these convictions. With regard to Anchorage girls naked privates solicitation charges, Braun contends that his actions did not violate the solicitation statute.
Ready Sex Date Anchorage girls naked privates
We agree with Braun, and Anchorage girls naked privates therefore reverse his solicitation convictions. All of the charges in this case stem from Braun's conduct toward several neighborhood girls who played at his house in and Braun, who was 63 years old, frequently gave the girls snack food and candy; he would play games with them and take photographs of them with his camera. One of these girls, T. He offered her peanuts Anchorate she would do this.
Braun also asked T. Another girl, Anchorage girls naked privates. Both girls ran out of Braun's house. In addition to corroborating T. She further testified that Braun once suggested that they she and Horny women looking in Robersonville United States both take off ;rivates their clothes so that Braun could photograph them naked.
She also testified that Braun "would go underneath [her] clothes". Before trial, Anchotage. The jury was permitted to view this videotape. In the interview, J. When V.
Braun took the stand in his own defense. He testified that he Anchorags lived in his neighborhood for 20 years and that he had always had neighborhood children play at his house. However, Braun denied acting in a sexual manner toward any of the children. In particular, Braun denied ever asking any of the children to take a shower in his house or to allow him to look at their genitals. Braun testified that he accidentally touched J. He stated that his hand accidentally got between the elastic of her clothing and Anchorage girls naked privates bare skin, but that he immediately withdrew it.
Braun also testified that he probably touched C. On cross-examination, Braun also naaked that V. The jury convicted Braun of all ten counts charged Anchoragw the indictment: On appeal, Braun Anchorage girls naked privates that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for engaging in sexual contact with M.
Notice of Interruption - Anchorage Daily News
Counts I and Anchorage girls naked privates of the indictment. Braun asserts that, if he did touch these children's breasts, the touching was inadvertent, not "knowing". He also asserts that, even if he knowingly touched their breasts, this act of touching could reasonably be construed as normal, affectionate interaction with the children. See AS However, viewing the evidence in the Anchorage girls naked privates most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdicts, Dorman orivates.
State, P. Relying on Potts v. However, Potts was decided under the former definition of "sexual contact". As formerly defined, "sexual contact" required proof that the defendant's act of touching was accompanied by an intent to achieve sexual gratification. Flink v. But following this court's decision in Flink, the Cheating wives in Lamar AR amended the definition of "sexual contact" for the express purpose of removing "intent to obtain sexual gratification" as an element of the offense.
Van Meter v. Thus, there was Anchorage girls naked privates need for the jury to find that Braun acted with the specific intent of achieving sexual gratification. Braun next argues that there was Anchorage girls naked privates evidence to support his conviction for engaging in sexual contact with J.
Count III of the indictment. Braun concedes that his trial attorney did not seek a judgement of acquittal on Count III, but he argues that the trial judge's failure to grant Braun an acquittal on this count was plain error.
This Naked Woman Trashed an Anchorage Subway | Time
In support of his plain error argument, Braun points out that J. Braun also relies on the portion of the trial when J. Based on this record, Braun argues that there Anchorage girls naked privates plainly no evidence to support a finding that Braun knowingly touched J. However, it appears that Braun's conviction for sexually abusing J. This evidence was introduced in the form of the videotaped statement that J.
When the Anchoarge argued Count III to Ancgorage jury, she stated:. Our review of the Sexy fem for sexy fem nostuds demonstrates that there was sufficient evidence to support Anchorage girls naked privates conviction for engaging in sexual contact with J.Adult Seeking Real Sex TN Spring Hill 37174
In his reply brief, Braun Anchorage girls naked privates that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he knowingly pressed J.
He argues, however, that because the evidence Anchorage girls naked privates two potential theories of sexual abuse, the jurors might not have been unanimous as to which theory the State had proved at trial. We disagree. As Braun points out in his opening brief, there was essentially no evidence that Braun touched J. It would be unreasonable to assume that the jury relied on this theory when they convicted Braun of sexually abusing J. There was, however, specific evidence that Braun pulled J.
As demonstrated by the quoted portion of the prosecutor's summation to the jury, the State expressly relied Fuck pussy Rio de janeiro this evidence, and this theory of the case, to establish Braun's sexual abuse of J.
Anchorage girls naked privates on this record, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the jurors disagreed on the theory behind Braun's conviction on Count III. Braun next contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction gkrls attempting to engage in sexual contact with T. Count IV of the indictment. He points out that, at trial, T.
Anchorage girls naked privates
However, in T. This videotaped statement was introduced into evidence and played for the jury at Braun's trial. Braun points out that, even in the videotaped interview, T. At one point, T. However, it is the jury's role to resolve conflicts and ambiguities in the evidence.
Viewing the evidence in the light Ancuorage favorable to upholding the jury's verdict, there was sufficient evidentiary support for the conclusion that Braun tried to remove T. And from this finding, the jury could justifiably conclude that Braun's action had been taken for the purpose of touching T.
Thus, Anchirage evidence was sufficient to support Braun's conviction for attempting to engage in haked contact with T. For these reasons, we uphold Braun's convictions for second-degree sexual abuse of Anchorage girls naked privates minor and attempted second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. We turn now to Braun's convictions Married woman looking hot sex Norfolk Virginia soliciting the crime of unlawful exploitation of a minor, AS This statute reads:.
Anchorage girls naked privates
Braun was indicted on six counts of soliciting the violation of this statute. According to the indictment, the State's theory of prosecution was that Braun. Anhcorage is, the State argued that Braun had solicited the violation of AS First, Braun asked four of the pricates to lewdly exhibit their genitals Girl looking for cock to suck Bremen that he could view them. The State asserted that, had the Anchorage girls naked privates done what Braun asked, this would have constituted a "live performance".
Second, Braun asked two of the girls to lewdly exhibit their genitals so that he could take photographs of them.
With respect to each of the six Anchorage girls naked privates of solicitation, the jury received the same instruction on the substantive crime of unlawful exploitation of prjvates minor:.
In Counts VII through X of Braun's indictment, the State alleged that when Braun asked the children to let him look at their genitals, Braun acted "with the intent of producing a live performance" of the lewd exhibition of a child's genitals.
During final argument, the prosecutor reiterated this theory. Anchorage girls naked privates
The two privatse solicitation counts Counts V and VI were supported by testimony that Annchorage had asked the two children to disrobe so that he could photograph them. Braun attacks his convictions on Counts VII through X by arguing that the jury was misinformed on what constitutes a "live performance". Braun argues that a "live performance" requires an audience Anchorage girls naked privates than the person who requests the child to exhibit his or her genitals. Braun therefore contends that, because he was to be the sole onlooker when the children disrobed, he can not have intended to produce Anchorage girls naked privates "live performance".
This argument was not preserved in the trial court. Nevertheless, because Braun's contention goes to the definition of the crime, we will address it. In Harris v. See ch. The New York statutes which formed the basis of AS There is no definition of "live performance" in AS However, the corresponding New York statute contains a Horney women Herne of "performance" that supports Braun's interpretation; Anchorage girls naked privates indicates that a live performance requires an audience.
The unlawful exploitation of a minor statute applies to all children under the age of Girps Anchorage girls naked privates State's interpretation of "live performance", an adult who Housewives seeking real sex Burnt Cabins Pennsylvania a year-old child to disrobe so that the adult could view the child's genitals would be guilty of a class B felony, even though the adult's act nAchorage actually touching the child's genitals would be only a class C felony third-degree sexual abuse of a minor under AS Even more paradoxically, an adult who giels a year-old child to girlz preparatory to an act of consensual sexual intercourse would commit a class B felony, even though the adult's ensuing act of sexual intercourse with this child would be no crime at all.