Following jury convictions for repeated sexual offences against the offender's spouse and daughter, the court imposed sentence.
The court rejected a Kienapple argument because the sexual interference count involving the daughter was legally distinguished by the victim's age and factually distinguished by the relevant time period.
Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for intrafamilial sexual violence, breach of trust, repeated assaults, planning, intimidation, and lasting victim impact, the court fixed a global sentence of six years.
The sentence was structured through consecutive terms for the separate victim groupings, together with no-contact, DNA, weapons prohibition, and sex offender registration orders.
