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, Abraham Otero, was convicted of criminal sexual penetration (CSP) of a minor, specifically a child aged thirteen to sixteen. The conviction stemmed from an incident on July 4, 2016, where the Defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim, M.M., who was thirteen years old at the time. The Defendant had known M.M.'s mother for many years and had spent time with M.M. and her mother prior to the incident. During the trial, the Defendant stipulated to M.M.'s actual age (para 10).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not entering a mistrial due to "culturally insensitive" remarks made during jury deliberations, contended the State failed to prove he knew M.M. was under sixteen, claimed allowing a medical provider to testify about M.M.'s age violated the Confrontation Clause, and argued the district court committed reversible error by amending the indictment (paras 1, 3, 8, 11).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the Defendant waived his claim of jury bias, invited any error, and failed to preserve his claim of error regarding the jury deliberations. The State also argued that there was sufficient evidence to prove the Defendant knew M.M. was under sixteen and that the Defendant's other claims of error were without merit (paras 5, 8, 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not entering a mistrial due to "culturally insensitive" remarks made during jury deliberations.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant knew the victim was under sixteen years of age.
• Whether allowing a medical provider to testify about the victim's age violated the Confrontation Clause.
• Whether the district court committed reversible error by granting the prosecution’s motion to amend the indictment (paras 1, 3, 8, 11).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant on all counts (para 12).

Reasons

• BACA, Judge, ATTREP, Chief Judge, and BUSTAMANTE, Judge, concurring: The Court found that the Defendant waived his claim of jury bias by not taking further action after expressing concerns about the jury deliberations. The Court also determined that there was no evidence in the record to support the Defendant's assertions of racially biased statements affecting the jury's decision. Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Court concluded that there was substantial evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that the Defendant knew M.M. was not sixteen years old at the time of the incident, based on the Defendant's prior knowledge of M.M. and her family, as well as the evidence presented at trial. The Court also found the Defendant's remaining claims regarding the Confrontation Clause and the amendment of the indictment to be without merit and provided no basis for reversal (paras 3-11).