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 penetration of a minor (CSPM) and criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The State's evidence included the victims' testimony and the Defendant's admissions. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the preclusion of a defense witness from offering an expert opinion due to late designation as an expert.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Lisa B. Riley, District Judge

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, particularly disputing the clarity of the victim's testimony regarding penetration. Contended that the district court erred in precluding a defense witness from offering an expert opinion on the Defendant's mental and emotional impairment due to alcohol consumption and failure to take diabetes medication, arguing that the sanction was too extreme and the State was not prejudiced by the late disclosure.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Presented evidence including the victims' testimony and the Defendant's admissions to support the convictions. Argued that the late disclosure of the defense witness as an expert prejudiced the State, justifying the limitation on the witness' testimony.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for CSPM and CSCM.
• Whether the district court erred in precluding a defense witness from offering an expert opinion due to the Defendant's failure to designate the witness as an expert in a timely manner.
• Whether the Defendant's due process and double jeopardy rights were violated by the charging document and jury instructions failing to identify differentiating characteristics among the CSCM counts.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of the Defendant for CSPM and CSCM.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the evidence, including the victim's testimony and the Defendant's admissions, sufficient to support the convictions for CSPM and CSCM, rejecting the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence (paras 2-3). The Court also upheld the district court's decision to preclude a defense witness from offering an expert opinion on the Defendant's mental and emotional impairment, citing the late designation of the witness as an expert and the resulting prejudice to the State (para 3). The Court declined to consider the Defendant's unpreserved due process argument and found no merit in the double jeopardy argument, noting that the victim's testimony supported the convictions for the specified acts occurring on more than one occasion (paras 5-7). Lastly, the Court concluded that the record was insufficient to establish that the alleged deficiencies in trial counsel's performance prejudiced the defense, leaving the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without prejudice to pursue habeas proceedings (para 8).