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, Gavino Luna, was convicted for crimes involving a minor, J.C., while the child's mother was hospitalized. Luna showed J.C. inappropriate movies and engaged in sexual acts with him. Luna also intimidated J.C. to prevent him from reporting the incidents (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Luna County, Daniel Viramontes, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the convictions for CSCM, unlawful exhibition, and CDM did not violate double jeopardy, the jury instructions were adequate, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the admission of lay and expert testimony was proper (paras 6-7, 12, 17, 22, 26, 29, 33, 39).
• Defendant-Appellant (Gavino Luna): Challenged the convictions on grounds of double jeopardy, inadequacy of jury instructions, insufficiency of evidence, and improper admission of lay and expert testimony (paras 6-7, 12, 17, 22, 26, 29, 33, 39).

Legal Issues

• Whether Defendant’s convictions for CDM, CSCM, and Unlawful Exhibition of Motion Pictures to a Minor violate his right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court committed fundamental error in instructing the jury on unlawful exhibition of motion pictures to a minor and CSCM.
• Whether substantial evidence supports Defendant’s convictions for CDM, unlawful exhibition of motion pictures to a minor, and intimidation of a witness.
• Whether the district court committed plain error by admitting certain expert testimony.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the convictions for CSCM and intimidation of a witness.
• The court reversed the convictions for CDM and unlawful exhibition of motion pictures to a minor and remanded for further proceedings.

Reasons

• The court found that the CDM conviction violated double jeopardy principles as it was based on the same conduct as the CSCM and unlawful exhibition convictions (paras 7-17).
  The court determined that the jury instruction for unlawful exhibition of motion pictures to a minor was deficient and constituted fundamental error, leading to the reversal of the conviction (paras 20-26).
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for intimidation of a witness, affirming this conviction (paras 32-38).
  The court concluded that there was no plain error in admitting expert testimony regarding the child's behavior during his deposition, affirming the convictions for CSCM and intimidation of a witness (paras 39-42).