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 case involves the Defendant, Ronald Ray Renteria, who was convicted for criminal sexual contact of a minor. The conviction was based on the victim's description of the touching, which clearly negated consent.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chaves County, Kea W. Riggs, District Judge

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial due to a potential juror's remark, which he claimed tainted the jury pool and denied him a fair trial. He also contended that the district court should have individually questioned the potential jurors and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the use of force.
• Appellee: The State, through its representatives, opposed the Defendant's arguments, supporting the district court's decisions and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for mistrial based on a potential juror's remark.
• Whether the district court was required to individually question potential jurors.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, specifically regarding the use of force.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for criminal sexual contact of a minor.

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi, Judge Michael E. Vigil, and Judge Emil J. Kiehne, provided several reasons for affirming the conviction:
  Regarding the motion for mistrial (para 3): The Court found that the district court acted within its discretion by giving a curative instruction instead of declaring a mistrial, citing similar precedents where such actions were deemed sufficient.
  On the issue of individual voir dire (para 4): The Court concluded that there was no obligation for the district court to individually question potential jurors, especially in the absence of a request from the Defendant for such a procedure.
  Concerning the sufficiency of evidence (para 5): The Court rejected the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence related to the use of force. It referenced precedent establishing that the specific quantum of force is not as relevant as whether the force used was sufficient to negate consent, which was clearly negated in this case according to the victim's description of the touching.