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 lived with his girlfriend and her fifteen-year-old daughter, M.V., in Torrance County for several months in 2011. During this time, Defendant and M.V. engaged in sexual intercourse on multiple occasions, which M.V.'s mother eventually discovered. The relationship between the Defendant and M.V.'s mother ended, and the Defendant moved out (para 4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Torrance County: Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree criminal sexual penetration of a minor and second-degree criminal sexual penetration, perpetrated during the commission of the felony of giving alcohol to a minor.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant was correctly convicted based on the evidence presented at trial, including the Defendant's awareness of the victim's status as a minor and the introduction of certain evidence not objected to at trial (paras 1-3, 9-10).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the jury instruction on giving alcohol to a minor was defective because it did not include the Defendant's knowledge of the law as part of the mens rea for the offense. Additionally, argued that the admission of testimony about his character and uncharged conduct violated Rule 11-404 NMRA and should lead to reversal of the convictions (paras 9-10, 39-41).

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury instruction on giving alcohol to a minor was defective for not including the Defendant's knowledge of the law as part of the mens rea for the offense (para 10).
• Whether the admission of testimony about the Defendant's character and uncharged conduct violated Rule 11-404 NMRA and warrants reversal of the convictions (para 39).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions (para 46).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Zachary A. Ives and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, held that:
  The "knows or has reason to know" provision of Section 60-7B-1(A) was correctly construed to premise guilt on the Defendant's awareness that the victim was a minor, not on the Defendant's awareness of the law's prohibitions (paras 17-38).
  The introduction of certain evidence not objected to at trial, even if considered error, did not rise to the level of plain error. The Defendant failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the admission of this evidence, and thus, reversal of the convictions on this ground was not warranted (paras 39-45).