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 lived on a ranch with his wife, Treva, his daughter (Child), and his two sons. In May 2012, the Defendant legally adopted Child when she was twelve years old. On May 18, 2013, Treva found the Defendant sitting on a bed with Child, noticing Child was not wearing underwear and the Defendant's hand was under the blanket. Treva also observed the Defendant touching Child's intimate parts on New Year’s Eve 2011. Child testified that the Defendant had engaged in sexual contact with her multiple times per week since 2011 (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by (1) giving an incorrect jury instruction on the CSP charge, (2) changing the trial venue, (3) admitting statements made to an officer before being placed in the patrol car, and (4) denying a motion for a more definite statement (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Conceded that the jury was improperly instructed on the CSP charge and noted an error in the judgment regarding the degree of one of the CSCM convictions. Argued against the Defendant's other contentions (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury on the CSP charge by omitting the element of "force or coercion."
• Whether the change of trial venue from Catron County to Socorro County was appropriate.
• Whether statements made by the Defendant to an officer before being placed in the patrol car should have been admitted.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a more definite statement.

Disposition

• The court reversed the Defendant's conviction for CSP charged in Count 2 and remanded for retrial on this charge.
• Directed the district court to resentence the Defendant and amend its judgment concerning the degree of the Count 3 CSCM conviction.
• Affirmed the Defendant's convictions for Counts 1 and 3.

Reasons

• Per Stephen G. French, Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Michael E. Vigil, Judge concurring): The court found that the jury instruction for the CSP charge failed to include the required element of "force or coercion," constituting a reversible error (paras 5-11). The court held that the change of venue was not erroneous as the Defendant had agreed to it, waiving the right to contest it on appeal (paras 12-13). The court determined that the Defendant's statements made before being placed in the patrol car were spontaneous and not in response to interrogation, thus not requiring suppression (paras 14-20). Lastly, the court found no error in the denial of the Defendant's motion for a more definite statement, noting the Defendant's failure to prove actual and substantial prejudice (paras 22-24).