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 criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) in the fourth degree. The case arose from an incident where the Defendant, in a dark setting, was accused of touching the Victim's bra strap and underwear. The Defendant argued that the contact was accidental, occurring while he was searching for his daughter, and thus lacked unlawful intent (paras 1, 4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Darren M. Kugler, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred by instructing the jury on unlawfulness with the alternative “with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire” and contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for CSCM. The Defendant maintained that the touching was accidental and occurred in the context of searching for his daughter in the dark, without any unlawful purpose (paras 2-3, 5).
• Appellee: The State argued that the Defendant's actions of touching the Victim's bottom, underwear, and bra strap intruded upon the Victim's personal safety or bodily integrity, supporting the jury's instruction and the conviction. The State's theory posited that the Defendant knew the person he was touching was not his daughter and that the touch was sexualized (paras 4-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury on unlawfulness with the alternative “with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire” (para 2).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence presented to support the Defendant's conviction for CSCM (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor in the fourth degree (para 9).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring): The Court found that the district court did not err in its jury instruction on unlawfulness, which was based on the act being done to intrude upon the bodily integrity or personal safety of the Victim. This instruction was supported by the evidence presented, including the Defendant's touching of the Victim's bra strap and underwear. The Court also held that, under the facts of this case, it was irrelevant whether the Defendant touched the Victim with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire, citing State v. Gardner for the principle that a defendant who unlawfully and intentionally touches an intimate part of a minor’s body is guilty of CSCM, regardless of the motivation behind the act. The Court further concluded that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction, as the jury necessarily rejected the Defendant's theory of accidental contact based on a mistake of fact, which it was entitled to do. The evidence that the Defendant touched the Victim's bottom, underwear, and bra strap was deemed adequate to support the conviction (paras 3-8).