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

• A police sting operation led to the Defendant being charged with child solicitation by electronic communication device after engaging in sexually explicit communications with an undercover officer posing as a fifteen-year-old girl on Craigslist. The Defendant argued that he was entrapped by the police, who initiated contact in an adults-only section of the website and used adult photographs and voice to portray the underage persona (paras 3-7).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Teddy L. Hartley, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, February 4, 2015, No. 35,065.
• Released for Publication March 31, 2015.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was unlawfully entrapped by the police operation, challenged the jury instruction on entrapment, and contested the constitutionality of Section 30-37-3.2 on First Amendment grounds (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the Defendant was not unlawfully entrapped, either as a matter of law or fact, and maintained the constitutionality of Section 30-37-3.2, which had been upheld in a previous opinion by the Court in 2011 (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was unlawfully entrapped by the police sting operation.
• Whether the jury instruction issue raised by the Defendant was valid.
• Whether Section 30-37-3.2 is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

Disposition

• The Court held that the Defendant was not unlawfully entrapped, either as a matter of law or fact.
• The Court did not consider the Defendant’s unpreserved jury instruction argument.
• The Court did not reconsider the constitutionality of Section 30-37-3.2 on First Amendment grounds, as it was previously upheld in 2011 (para 2).

Reasons

• The Court, per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Timothy L. Garcia and M. Monica Zamora concurring, found that the Defendant was not unlawfully entrapped, focusing on the Defendant's predisposition to commit the crime rather than police conduct. The Court distinguished this case from precedents like Sherman and Sorrells by noting the Defendant's voluntary and unprompted engagement in sexual communication with the persona, despite being immediately informed of the persona's age. The Court also noted that the police's methods, including posting in an adults-only section and using adult portrayals for the underage persona, did not constitute improper inducement or overreach. The Court declined to address the jury instruction issue due to lack of preservation and reiterated the constitutionality of Section 30-37-3.2, dismissing the Defendant's First Amendment challenge based on precedent (paras 10-29).