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 criminal sexual contact of a minor and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The appeal centers around issues of insufficient notice of the factual basis for one charge, the propriety of an amendment to the information, and the Defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses regarding the charges against him (paras 1-9).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Los Alamos County, Mary L. Marlowe, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that he had insufficient notice of the factual basis for the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, contending that the amendment to the information was improper and deprived him of the opportunity to mount a defense. Additionally, the Appellant argued that preventing him from cross-examining the State’s sexual assault nurse examination (SANE) nurse about the cause of the victim’s injuries denied him his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him (paras 2, 3, 5, 8).
• Appellee: Supported the amendment to the information as proper under Rule 5-204(C) NMRA and case law, and maintained that the Appellant had sufficient notice of the charges and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Appellee also argued that any error in excluding testimony from the SANE nurse did not establish prejudice against the Defendant (paras 2, 4, 8-9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant had insufficient notice of the factual basis for the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor due to an amendment to the information.
• Whether the amendment to the information was proper under Rule 5-204(C) NMRA and relevant case law.
• Whether preventing the Defendant from cross-examining the State’s sexual assault nurse examination (SANE) nurse about the cause of the victim’s injuries denied him his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence, finding no persuasive arguments from the Defendant regarding the issues raised (para 10).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL and HENRY M. BOHNHOFF concurring, the Court found that the Defendant abandoned the double jeopardy issue by not responding to it. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments regarding insufficient notice of the factual basis for the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, finding the amendment to the information proper under Rule 5-204(C) NMRA and supported by case law. The Court also concluded that the Defendant had notice of the statute under which he was charged and was aware of the allegations against him prior to trial. Regarding the right to cross-examine the SANE nurse, the Court determined that the Defendant did not establish prejudice from any limitation on cross-examination. The Court affirmed the judgment and sentence based on these findings (paras 1-10).