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

• In the late 1990s, the Defendant moved to Albuquerque, New Mexico, and opened a magic and juggling shop. The shop became a popular place for children, including the Victim, a twelve-year-old seventh grader. The Defendant and the Victim spent time together at the shop and attended a juggling club. The Defendant was indicted for sexually assaulting the Victim, a child under thirteen, but fled the jurisdiction before his arraignment. He was located in Nepal in 2014 using facial recognition technology, extradited to New Mexico, and subsequently convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP) of a child under thirteen and two counts of first-degree kidnapping (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury was improperly instructed, his right to a speedy trial was violated, and his procedural due process rights to appeal were violated (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly instructed the jury.
• Whether the Defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether the Defendant’s procedural due process rights to appeal were violated.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the convictions for two counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP) of a child under thirteen and two counts of first-degree kidnapping (para 1).

Reasons

• The court found that the special verdict forms did not constitute an impermissible constructive amendment to the indictment and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that the Defendant did not free the Victim in a safe place. The court also held that the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury according to State v. Trujillo, as the restraint was not merely incidental to the commission of another crime. Regarding the speedy trial claim, the court considered the length of delay, reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the defendant, ultimately concluding that the Defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. The court also found no violation of the Defendant’s procedural due process rights to a speedy appeal, noting the absence of any prejudice suffered by the Defendant as a result of the appellate delay (paras 6-54).