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, Lisa Stevens, was convicted for directing her thirteen-year-old daughter to perform oral sex on Stevens' twenty-four-year-old boyfriend after they had all injected methamphetamine together. This occurred on two separate occasions in the fall of 2007, during a period when the daughter often skipped school to use methamphetamine provided by Stevens and the boyfriend. The daughter testified that she complied with Stevens' direction because she was high and indifferent at the time. The incidents were alleged to have happened before Halloween of 2007, a timeline that was later corrected during the trial to reflect the daughter's testimony more accurately (paras 1, 4-7).

Procedural History

• State v. Stevens, No. 29,357, mem. op. at 2, 6-7 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2011) (nonprecedential): The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, declining to reconsider its holding in Maestas that a conviction for CSP II-felony can be based on otherwise lawful sex occurring during the commission of a felony.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that the convictions for CSP II-felony resulted from fundamental error because the jury was not instructed that the State had to prove that the sexual activity occurring during the commission of a felony was otherwise “criminal” and contended that allowing the State to amend the description of the dates of the offenses during trial was reversible error (para 12).
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Maintained that the jury instructions were adequate and that the amendment to the date description in the charging documents and resulting jury instructions was permissible and did not prejudice the Defendant's defense (paras 13-14, 49-57).

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury instructions for CSP II-felony were deficient for not requiring a finding that the sexual activity was unlawful and resulted from the commission of a felony against the victim (para 13).
• Whether the amendment to the date description in the charging documents and resulting jury instructions constituted reversible error (para 49).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed all of Defendant’s convictions (para 58).

Reasons

• The Court, per Justice Daniels, held that while the jury instructions on the elements of CSP II-felony were inadequate for not requiring a finding that the sexual activity was unlawful and resulted from the commission of a felony against the victim, this deficiency did not result in fundamental error in the circumstances of this case. The Court reasoned that the sexual activity with the Defendant’s thirteen-year-old child was undeniably criminal sexual penetration during and resulting from the commission of a felony. Furthermore, the Court found that the amendment to the date description in the charging documents and resulting jury instructions was proper under Rule 5-204(C) and did not prejudice the Defendant's substantial rights. The Court also requested that the Uniform Jury Instructions Committee for Criminal Cases recommend amendments to clarify the elements juries must consider before returning verdicts for CSP-felony (paras 13-14, 22-58).