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, Jeremy Jaramillo, was convicted of multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration and contact against a minor, who was not his biological daughter but for whom he assumed a parental role. The abuse began when the victim was eleven or twelve years old and continued after the family moved to a new residence. The victim testified to specific instances of abuse that occurred in both locations. The Defendant denied all allegations of abuse.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: After a mistrial in August 2011 and dismissal of two counts, the Defendant was retried and convicted on multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration and contact of a minor. The Defendant appealed the convictions.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions and that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were correct.
• Appellant (Jeremy Jaramillo): Raised due process and double jeopardy arguments, challenged three of the district court’s evidentiary rulings, and contended that cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support one of the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree (child thirteen to eighteen) (person in position of authority).
• Whether the Defendant's due process rights were violated due to lack of specificity and differentiation between the counts listed in the indictment and the State’s evidence at trial.
• Whether the Defendant's multiple convictions violated double jeopardy protections.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.

Disposition

• One of the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree (child thirteen to eighteen) (person in position of authority) is reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss. The remaining convictions are affirmed.

Reasons

• Insufficient Evidence: The Court found insufficient evidence to support one of the Defendant's convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree due to a discrepancy in the victim's testimony regarding the number of incidents involving breast touching (paras 7-8).
  Due Process: The Court concluded that the Defendant's due process claims related to the indictment and jury instructions were unpreserved for review because they were not sufficiently raised at trial (paras 10-13).
  Double Jeopardy: The Court determined that the Defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy protections, finding sufficient indicia of distinctness in the victim's testimony to support multiple charges (paras 15-18).
  Evidentiary Rulings: The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding polygraph evidence, allowing testimony regarding text messages, and excluding a previous statement of a potential witness. The Court also noted that some of Defendant's arguments were either undeveloped or unpreserved for appellate review (paras 19-28).
  Cumulative Error: The Court found no cumulative error affecting the Defendant's conviction due to the absence of identified errors on the points raised (para 29).