State v. Bariteau, 884 N.W.2d 169

Victim H.S., age 14, was a member of a church youth group where defendant Timothy J. Bariteau served as worship pastor and interacted with minors.
From 7th–8th grade, Bariteau and H.S. exchanged flirtatious Facebook and text messages; Bariteau admitted sending sexually explicit texts and photos.
On multiple occasions at church (sound booth), Bariteau stood behind H.S. and pressed his erect penis and groin against her buttocks through clothing; he also grabbed her butt and kissed her neck on one occasion.
Bariteau acknowledged sexual arousal in interviews and apologized after at least one incident; the pastor reported the conduct to law enforcement.
Bariteau was indicted under SDCL 22-22-7 (sexual contact with a child under 16) and convicted by a jury; he appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence and (2) prosecutorial misstatement of law during closing argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict under SDCL 22-22-7	State: touching the defendant's genitalia to the victim counts as "sexual contact" under SDCL 22-22-7.1	Bariteau: statute covers only touching of the victim's breasts, genitalia, or anus — not touching the victim with the defendant's genitalia; thus evidence insufficient	Court: conviction affirmed — sexual contact includes any touching "of . . . the genitalia of any person," which encompasses touching by the defendant's genitalia to the victim; testimony of arousal sufficed for intent.
Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating law in closing	State: argument correctly described sexual contact to include defendant’s genitalia touching the victim	Bariteau: prosecutor misstated law, shifting definition to include what perpetrator used to touch; defense preserved prejudice	Court: no plain error — prosecutor’s statement was a correct statement of law under the Court’s statutory interpretation; not misconduct.

State v. Brende, 835 N.W.2d 131 (S.D. 2013) (upheld sexual-contact convictions where defendant placed penis in minor’s butt crack; court did not analyze statutory definition in depth)
State v. Holzer, 611 N.W.2d 647 (S.D. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. McGill, 536 N.W.2d 89 (S.D. 1995) (accept evidence and most favorable inferences supporting verdict)
State v. Heftel, 513 N.W.2d 397 (S.D. 1994) (principle on accepting inferences for sufficiency review)
State v. Schnaidt, 410 N.W.2d 589 (S.D. 1987) (statute enacted to protect morals of children and prevent defilement)