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

• The Defendant was convicted of twelve counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), involving a child under thirteen. The case involved challenges related to jury selection, an amendment to the indictment changing the charging period for one of the CSPM charges, and a contention that one count was not supported by sufficient evidence.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by failing to excuse two jurors due to bias and lack of necessity, challenged the amendment of the indictment which changed the charging period for one of the CSPM charges, and contended that there was insufficient evidence to support Count 14.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's arguments about juror bias were not preserved for review, the amendment to the indictment was permissible and did not prejudice the Defendant's substantial rights, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction on Count 14.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not excusing two jurors for bias and necessity.
• Whether the amendment of the indictment, changing the charging period for one of the CSPM charges, was permissible.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction on Count 14.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the convictions on all counts.

Reasons

• BACA, Judge; ATTREP, Judge; BOGARDUS, Judge (concurring): Found that the issue of juror bias was not preserved for review as the Defendant did not sufficiently alert the trial court to the claimed error (paras 4-5). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in replacing a juror, as the Defendant did not have a vested right to a particular juror and did not establish any prejudice from the juror's replacement (paras 6-10). Regarding the amendment of the indictment, the court determined it was permissible under Rule 5-204 NMRA, as it did not charge an additional or different offense and did not prejudice the Defendant's substantial rights (paras 11-14). Lastly, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction on Count 14, as the victim's testimony provided direct evidence of the crime (paras 15-16).