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, Edward Cebada, was convicted of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) for digitally penetrating a sixteen-year-old female by force or coercion. The incident occurred after the Defendant and the Victim, who had become acquainted through his job at a gas station, went on a date. Despite the Victim's verbal objections and physical resistance, the Defendant proceeded with the act. The law enforcement became aware of the incident, leading to the Defendant's indictment and subsequent conviction for CSPM (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Jacqueline D. Flores, District Court Judge: Convicted the Defendant of one count of CSPM and denied his motion for a new trial (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury should have been instructed on the age of consent in New Mexico, contended that the jury's question regarding the age of consent should have been answered, and claimed that the district court should have granted a new trial based on the jury’s confusion about the age of consent (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to preserve his claim of error regarding jury instructions on the age of consent because he did not tender a legally correct jury instruction to the district court. The State also argued that the Defendant's motion for a new trial was untimely and did not present newly-discovered evidence (paras 5, 17-18).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the age of consent in New Mexico.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to answer the jury’s question about the legal age of consent in New Mexico.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (paras 4, 11, 16).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting the Defendant's arguments regarding the jury instructions on the age of consent, the jury's question about the age of consent, and the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (para 20).

Reasons

• Per HENDERSON, Judge (BOGARDUS and BACA, Judges concurring):
  The Court reiterated that lack of consent is not a necessary element of CSPM by force or coercion, and under the facts of this case, the jury was not required to be further instructed on the age of consent in New Mexico (para 1).
  The Court found that the Defendant's claim of error regarding the jury instruction on the age of consent was preserved for appellate review, but concluded that the facts of the case did not warrant an instruction on the legal age of consent, nor would such an instruction have confused or misled the jury (paras 5-10).
  Regarding the jury's question about the age of consent, the Court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to answer, as the age of consent was not an issue at trial and answering the question could have confused the jury (paras 11-12).
  The Court concluded that the Defendant's motion for a new trial was properly denied because the alleged new evidence did not meet the requirements for granting a new trial, including the inability to probably change the result, and was deemed cumulative and untimely (paras 16-18).