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 for three counts of second-degree criminal sexual penetration (deadly weapon), one count of armed robbery, one count of aggravated burglary (deadly weapon), and two counts of tampering with evidence. The incidents involved the Defendant demanding the Victim to hand over her cell phone and bedding after raping her, which he later disposed of, along with a green-handled knife used in the crime, in separate locations.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his convictions for two counts of tampering with evidence violated his right to be free from double jeopardy, challenged the district court's decision to strike a prospective juror for cause based on the juror's religious beliefs and inability to follow the law regarding the sufficiency of witness testimony, contended that the presence of the State’s main law enforcement witness during voir dire was improper, argued that his right to be free from double jeopardy was violated with the sentencing for three crimes of criminal sexual penetration (CSP), claimed that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and argued that he was deprived of a fair trial due to the composition of the jury being mainly "elderly women."
• Appellee (State): Defended the convictions and the trial court's decisions regarding jury selection, the presence of a law enforcement witness during voir dire, the sentencing for multiple counts of CSP, and the overall fairness of the trial process.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for two counts of tampering with evidence violated his right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court improperly struck a prospective juror for cause based on the juror's religious beliefs and statements during voir dire.
• Whether the presence of the State’s main law enforcement witness at the prosecutor’s table during voir dire was improper.
• Whether the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was violated with the sentencing for three crimes of CSP.
• Whether the Defendant's sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
• Whether the Defendant was deprived of a fair trial due to the composition of the jury.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions and denied the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement.

Reasons

• WECHSLER, Judge (SUTIN, J., and GARCIA, J., concurring):
  Denied the motion to amend the docketing statement regarding double jeopardy for tampering with evidence, finding the acts sufficiently distinct due to being disposed of at different times in separate locations.
  Held that the prospective juror was appropriately struck for cause not based on religious affiliation but due to an expressed inability to follow the law regarding the sufficiency of witness testimony.
  Found no specific prejudice from the presence of the State’s law enforcement witness during voir dire, stating Rule 11-615 NMRA does not address witness presence during this phase and the Defendant failed to demonstrate specific prejudice.
  Determined that the facts supported three separate acts of CSP with a deadly weapon under the Herron v. State framework, thus not violating the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy.
  Concluded that the length of the sentence was within the district court’s discretion and not disproportionate to the crimes, thus not constituting cruel and unusual punishment.
  Rejected the claim of an unfair trial due to jury composition, emphasizing the right to impartial jurors, not to jurors of the Defendant's choosing, and noting the argument was not preserved below.