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 two counts of third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), involving his granddaughter, A.S., during a period he babysat her while her grandmother was ill. The incidents occurred between June 2016 and November 2016, but were not reported by A.S. until September 2017. The Defendant was initially charged with one count of first-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP) and two counts of second-degree CSCM, but the CSCM counts were later reduced to third degree (para 2-3, 5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by instructing the jury on New Mexico’s corroboration statute, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction (para 1).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Defended the district court's decisions and argued that the jury instructions were appropriate, the Defendant received effective legal representation, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by giving the jury a nonuniform instruction mirroring New Mexico’s corroboration statute.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision on all issues raised by the Defendant (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, through Judge Gerald E. Baca, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, provided the following reasons:
  Jury Instruction The court found that the nonuniform jury instruction was not reversible error. It was given in response to a jury question about treating a child's testimony as evidence, which was not superfluous, confusing, nor a directive to accept the testimony at face value. The instruction was deemed a correct statement of the corroboration statute and, when considered with other instructions, provided a fair and accurate statement of the law (paras 6-18).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel The Defendant did not make a prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court noted that the record was insufficient to establish the reasonableness of defense counsel’s actions or if they caused prejudice to the Defendant. The Defendant's claims regarding counsel's failure to call certain witnesses and not permitting him to testify were unsupported by the record (paras 24-26).
  Sufficiency of Evidence The court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions. The evidence included A.S.'s testimony, notes describing the incidents, behavior changes noted by Ms. Vasquez, and details from a forensic interview. The court emphasized that it was the jury's role to assess credibility and weigh the evidence presented (paras 27-35).