The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual interference arising from allegations that he touched a thirteen-year-old household member's breasts and vagina during apparent horseplay.
The appeal alleged misapprehension of the evidence, improper use of blanket-lifting evidence, and error in concluding the conduct met the elements of sexual interference and sexual assault.
The court held the trial judge's inference about visibility during the touching was supported by the evidence, the blanket-lifting incident was admissible and relevant to sexual purpose, and the touching was properly found to be sexual in nature.
The conviction appeal was dismissed and the custodial sentence was ordered into effect.
