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

• Under a false identity and credentials, the Defendant was employed as a psychologist at the Albuquerque Family and Child Guidance Center, where he counseled patients, including minors. He was later convicted of multiple counts of practicing psychology without a license, criminal sexual contact of a minor, and attempted criminal sexual contact of a minor.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his constitutional rights to a speedy trial and to be free from double jeopardy were violated. Contended that evidence obtained through illegal warrants should have been suppressed, claimed insufficient evidence for one of the criminal sexual contact of a minor convictions, and argued that the district court's reading of one of his prior statements to the jury constituted fundamental error.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the delay in trial was not prejudicial to the Defendant, the evidence obtained would have been inevitably discovered through legal means, and that the separate counts of practicing psychology without a license and criminal sexual contact of a minor were justified based on the Defendant's actions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether evidence obtained through illegal warrants should have been suppressed.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for multiple counts of practicing psychology without a license and criminal sexual contact of a minor violated the principle of double jeopardy.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor.
• Whether the district court's reading of the Defendant's prior statement to the jury constituted fundamental error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jonathan B. Sutin authoring the opinion, found no error in the Defendant's convictions. The court held that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated considering the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, Defendant's assertion of his right, and lack of prejudice to the Defendant. The court also found that the evidence obtained through illegal warrants would have been inevitably discovered through legal means, and that the separate counts of practicing psychology without a license and criminal sexual contact of a minor were justified based on the Defendant's actions. The court determined there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor and that the district court's reading of the Defendant's prior statement to the jury did not constitute fundamental error.