In a criminal appeal concerning convictions for sexual assault and unlawful touching, the appellant argued that trial reasons were insufficient and that the burden of proof was misapplied.
The Court held that the functional test for sufficiency was met because the reasons, read in context, explained why guilt was found and permitted meaningful appellate review.
The Court also held that the trial judge properly applied reasonable doubt principles and did not impermissibly decide the case by merely choosing between competing accounts.
The appellant’s denial was considered but did not raise a reasonable doubt on the record.
The appeal was dismissed.
