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 case involves the Defendant, Benedicto Marquez, who was convicted of first-degree kidnapping and second-degree criminal sexual contact with a minor (CSCM II). The incident occurred over a weekend in July 2007, involving the Defendant's six-year-old daughter, referred to as the Victim. The Victim testified that while being driven home by the Defendant, he pulled over, removed both their pants, and committed a sexual act. The Defendant denied these allegations, claiming he was never alone with the Victim and that they went directly home from picking her up. The Victim reported the incident to her mother, leading to an official investigation and the Defendant's subsequent convictions.

Procedural History

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

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his convictions for kidnapping and CSCM violated his rights against double jeopardy as they were based on the same act. Additionally, he contended there was insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping conviction.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the kidnapping and CSCM convictions did not violate double jeopardy principles and that there was sufficient evidence to support both convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for both first-degree kidnapping and second-degree CSCM violate his double jeopardy rights.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for kidnapping.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for kidnapping.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Linda M. Vanzi with Judges J. Miles Hanisee concurring and Michael E. Vigil dissenting, held that the Defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy principles and that there was sufficient evidence to support the kidnapping conviction. The Court applied the Swafford test to determine if the conduct underlying the offenses was unitary and found it was not, based on the jury's possible inference that the Defendant had kidnapped the Victim by deception with the intent to commit a sexual offense. The Court distinguished this case from previous cases where convictions were vacated on double jeopardy grounds, noting that in this instance, the jury could have reasonably found separate factual bases for the kidnapping and CSCM convictions. Judge Vigil dissented, arguing that the majority's reasoning effectively creates an irrebuttable presumption that any parent committing a sexual offense against their child also commits kidnapping by deception, which he views as a violation of due process.