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

• Adan M. Carrillo, the Defendant, was convicted for two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The convictions followed a second trial, the first having ended in a mistrial due to manifest necessity. The Defendant's appeal challenges the exclusion of testimony regarding the Victim's father's past sexual misconduct, contends double jeopardy in his two CSCM convictions, and argues the impropriety of the mistrial declaration in his first trial.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, presided over by Judge Thomas A. Rutledge, resulting in convictions for two counts of CSPM and one count of CSCM.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that (1) the district court improperly excluded testimony about the Victim's father's past sexual misconduct, which was relevant to the defense; (2) faced double jeopardy with two convictions for CSPM based on "carbon copy" jury instructions; and (3) the first trial's mistrial was improperly granted, rendering the subsequent conviction void.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding testimony regarding the Victim's father's past sexual misconduct.
• Whether the Defendant was subjected to double jeopardy through his two convictions for CSPM.
• Whether the mistrial declared in the first trial was improper, thereby voiding the subsequent conviction.

Disposition

• The conviction for the second count of CSPM was reversed due to double jeopardy concerns.
• The district court's decision to exclude testimony regarding the Victim's father's past sexual misconduct was affirmed.
• The declaration of a mistrial in the first trial was deemed proper due to manifest necessity, affirming the validity of the Defendant's convictions from the second trial.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  Exclusion of Testimony: The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony about the Victim's father's past sexual misconduct, finding the evidence too attenuated in time and subject matter to be relevant to the case at hand.
  Double Jeopardy: The court found that the jury instructions for the two counts of CSPM did not sufficiently distinguish between the incidents, leading to a violation of the Defendant's double jeopardy protections. As a result, the conviction for the second count of CSPM was reversed.
  Mistrial Declaration: The court concluded that the mistrial in the first trial was required by manifest necessity following a threat to a juror, which was believed to be from someone related to the Defendant. This threat and its communication to the jury created an environment that could not ensure an impartial verdict, justifying the mistrial declaration.