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 was convicted of multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration (CSP), false imprisonment, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The case involves the Defendant's actions towards a victim, including acts of CSP by intercourse and fellatio, under circumstances involving force or coercion, and the false imprisonment of the victim.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge, February 4, 2016.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Contended that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made to the police, argued that multiple convictions for CSP and one conviction for false imprisonment violated double jeopardy, and claimed that evidence of the Victim’s past conduct was improperly excluded.
• Appellee: Argued that the motion to suppress was untimely, maintained that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy, and supported the exclusion of evidence regarding the Victim's past conduct.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress statements made to the police.
• Whether multiple convictions for CSP and one conviction for false imprisonment violate double jeopardy.
• Whether evidence of the Victim’s past conduct was improperly excluded.

Disposition

• The court vacated four convictions of CSP and one count of false imprisonment and remanded for resentencing.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge (James J. Wechsler, Judge, M. Monica Zamora, Judge concurring):
  Motion to Suppress The court affirmed the denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress on the basis that it was not timely filed. The motion was filed almost twenty-one months after the indictment and just before the trial, without showing good cause for the delay, contrary to the requirements under Rule 5-212(C) NMRA and the precedent set by Marquez and Helker (paras 3-8).
  Double Jeopardy The court agreed with the Defendant that the multiple convictions for CSP and the conviction for false imprisonment violated the principles of double jeopardy. It held that the convictions for the alternative counts of CSP were improper as they were based on the same conduct, and the legislature did not intend to authorize multiple punishments for the same act. Additionally, the court found that the conviction for false imprisonment, alongside CSP, violated double jeopardy because there was no evidence of additional force beyond that inherent in the act of CSP itself (paras 9-17).
  Exclusion of Victim’s Past Conduct The court rejected the Defendant's argument that applying the amended Rule 11-412 NMRA to exclude evidence of the Victim's past conduct violated the New Mexico Constitution. It held that changes to the rule were stylistic and not substantive, and thus did not affect the right or remedy of either party in a pending case (para 18).