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 (CSP) in the third degree. The conviction stemmed from an incident that occurred on December 17, 2017, involving the Defendant and the Victim. The Defendant was accused of engaging in sexual intercourse or causing the insertion of a finger or object into the Victim by using physical force or violence, or by taking advantage of the Victim's intoxication, which rendered her incapable of understanding the nature or consequences of the act.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the jury instruction error claimed by the Defendant was not preserved at the district court level and should only be reviewed for fundamental error. The State also contended that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, were sufficient and did not result in fundamental error.
• Defendant-Appellant (Kyle Anthony): Claimed that the jury instruction for CSP resulted in fundamental error by omitting a necessary element—that the force or coercion caused the sexual intercourse or insertion. Additionally, the Defendant argued that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony and terms used during the trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury instruction for CSP resulted in fundamental error.
• Whether the trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the conviction was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, J. Miles Hanisee, and Gerald E. Baca, provided the following reasons for their decision:
  Regarding the CSP Jury Instruction: The Court found that the jury instruction did not result in fundamental error. The instruction was consistent with the uniform jury instruction for CSP, and when read as a whole, it sufficiently conveyed the connection between the use of physical force or violence and the sexual act (paras 2-6). The Court rejected the Defendant's overly formalistic reading of the instruction and concluded that no instructional error occurred.
  Regarding Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court determined that the Defendant did not make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court reasoned that the lack of objections to certain testimony could be justified as a trial tactic or strategy, and the Defendant failed to demonstrate that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the objections been made (paras 9-10).