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 for criminal sexual contact of a minor under the age of 13. The evidence against the Defendant included witness testimony, including that of the Victim, and videotape evidence. The Defendant testified that he did not intentionally touch the Victim's breast and offered an innocent explanation for his movements.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chaves County, James M. Hudson, District Judge

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence, including witness testimony and videotape evidence, was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor under 13.
• Appellant (Jacob Axe): Contested the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, arguing that he did not intentionally touch the Victim's breast and that his movements had an innocent explanation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor under the age of 13.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for criminal sexual contact of a minor under 13.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J., concurred by Daniel J. Gallegos, J., and Jennifer L. Attrep, J.: The Court conducted a two-step review process to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence. Initially, evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. The Court then determined whether, viewed in this manner, the evidence could justify a rational trier of fact in finding that each element of the crime charged had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence required to convict the Defendant included demonstrating that he intentionally touched or applied force to the breast of a child under the age of 13. The State presented both witness testimony, including that of the Victim, and videotape evidence to support the charge. Despite the Defendant's testimony denying intentional contact and providing an alternative explanation for his actions, the jury was entitled to interpret the evidence differently. The Court affirmed the conviction, indicating that questions of a defendant's knowledge or intent are typically matters for the jury to decide, and the fact-finder is free to reject the defendant's version of events (paras 1-4).