AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• A thirteen-year-old, referred to as Damon C., was convicted for taking two cell phone videos of his hand touching the unclothed vulva of a three to four-year-old girl. He faced charges of sexual exploitation of children and criminal sexual contact with a minor, resulting in a sentence to supervised probation, community service, counseling, and other rehabilitative measures (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Sandra A. Price, District Judge, January 25, 2016.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the sexual exploitation of children statute should not apply to child participants like himself, as it would produce absurd results contrary to the statute's purpose. Also contended that his double jeopardy rights were violated by being convicted of multiple counts for a single continuous act (paras 3-4, 13).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the sexual exploitation of children statute applies to child participants.
• Whether the appellant's right to be free from double jeopardy was violated by multiple convictions for the same act.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for sexual exploitation of children and criminal sexual contact with a minor (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges James J. Wechsler and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, held that:
  The sexual exploitation of children statute applies to child participants, including the appellant. This conclusion was supported by the clear and unambiguous language of the statute and precedent from the New Mexico Supreme Court in State v. Pitts, which rejected similar arguments regarding statutory interpretation and legislative intent (paras 4-9).
  The statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the appellant. The Court distinguished the appellant's actions from those in cases where the distinction between perpetrator and victim might be blurred, noting that the appellant was clearly the manufacturer of the prohibited images (para 12).
  The appellant's double jeopardy rights were not violated. The Court found that each video produced constituted a separate violation of the statute, and the convictions for criminal sexual contact with a minor were supported by distinct acts separated by a significant time interval, thus not violating principles of double jeopardy (paras 13-21).