State v. Samuel U.

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the asserted inadequacy of notice concerning prior sexual-misconduct evidence was not a constitutional due-process violation and therefore could not be reviewed under the applicable unpreserved-claim framework. It also held that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the daughter’s testimony because the notice sufficiently corresponded to that testimony, the relevant nonincarceration period was approximately four years, and the prior and charged misconduct involved similar conduct and victims. No separate opinions were provided.