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, a truck driver, was accused of sexually abusing his daughter, the Victim, during trips they took together, often out-of-state. The abuse was reported after the Victim disclosed to her mother that the Defendant had touched her inappropriately. The Defendant was charged with two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), with the incidents alleged to have occurred between July 16, 2011, and June 1, 2013. The Victim testified to multiple instances of abuse in various locations, including the Defendant's truck, hotels, a mobile home, and at her mother's house.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, including the timing and location of the offenses.
• Defendant-Appellant (Alberto Cruz): Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, challenged the rejection of a proposed jury instruction on unanimity, and claimed prosecutorial error during closing arguments deprived him of a fair trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether the district court erred in rejecting the Defendant's proposed jury instruction on jury unanimity.
• Whether prosecutorial error during closing arguments deprived the Defendant of a fair trial.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's convictions on two counts of CSPM and one count of CSCM.

Reasons

• The court, consisting of Judges B. Zamora, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Megan P. Duffy, held that:
  Sufficient Evidence: There was substantial evidence, both direct and circumstantial, to support the verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for all charges. The Victim's testimony, corroborated by the timeline and the Defendant's access to the Victim, was sufficient to establish the occurrences of abuse within the charged timeframe and in the specified locations (paras 5-8).
  Jury Unanimity Instruction: The court found no error in the district court's rejection of the Defendant's proposed jury unanimity instruction. The State charged the Defendant based on a continuing course of conduct, which was permissible, and the jury was properly instructed on distinguishing between the conduct for each count. The court concluded that it was sufficient for the district court to give only the standard unanimity instruction (paras 10-14).
  Prosecutorial Misstatements: The court determined that the prosecutor's brief misstatements during closing arguments, which were quickly corrected, did not deprive the Defendant of a fair trial. The misstatements were isolated and did not rise to the level of reversible error (paras 15-18).