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

• During the summer of 2008, R.S., a six-year-old, lived with her grandmother and the Defendant, her grandmother's husband. The Defendant was accused of repeatedly raping R.S. from August 2008 until April 2009 and attempting but failing to rape her in April 2013. R.S. disclosed the sexual abuse to her mother in 2015, and they reported it to the police six months later. The Defendant was charged with twenty-six counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM), one count of attempt to commit CSPM, and one count of intimidation of a witness (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge: Convicted the Defendant of twenty-one counts of CSPM, one count of attempt to commit CSPM, and one count of intimidation of a witness.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State's comments on his prearrest silence violated his Fifth Amendment right, that due process and double jeopardy rights require reversal of all but one CSPM conviction, and that the prosecution for intimidation of a witness was time-barred (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the use of the Defendant's prearrest silence as substantive proof of guilt was permissible and that the prosecution for intimidation of a witness was not barred by the statute of limitations (paras 23-25).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's comments on the Defendant's prearrest silence violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
• Whether due process and double jeopardy rights require the reversal of all but one of the Defendant's CSPM convictions.
• Whether the prosecution for intimidation of a witness was time-barred.

Disposition

• The Court reversed the Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial on the CSPM and attempted CSPM charges, agreeing that the State's comments on the Defendant's prearrest silence violated his Fifth Amendment rights and that the prosecution for intimidation of a witness was time-barred. The Court declined to resolve the Defendant's contention regarding due process and double jeopardy rights due to his failure to challenge the nature of the criminal information on those grounds prior to trial (para 29).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Hanisee, found that the prosecutor's pervasive references to the Defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege and the conclusion of guilt suggested therefrom did not withstand constitutional scrutiny. It was determined that the State's prosecution of the Defendant for intimidation of a witness was time-barred. However, the Court disagreed with the Defendant that the State is barred from reprosecution under State v. Breit. The Court permitted a challenge on remand based on the New Mexico Supreme Court's recent clarification of law in this area regarding the Defendant's CSPM convictions violating his due process and double jeopardy rights. The Court concluded that the prosecutor's comments on the Defendant's silence constituted fundamental error, requiring reversal of the convictions. Retrial was not barred by double jeopardy principles under Breit, and the Court agreed with the Defendant that his conviction for intimidation of a witness was barred by the statute of limitations (paras 5-28).