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 for criminal sexual contact of a minor under the age of 13. The incident involved the Defendant allegedly touching the victim's vagina while she was trying to sleep in her aunt's bedroom, where she spent the night along with the Defendant and her aunt. The victim reported the incident to her grandmother two months later (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the jury should not have believed the victim's testimony that the criminal sexual contact occurred and claimed that the State failed to prove the incident occurred in October 2014 as required by the jury instruction, pointing out an inconsistency in the date of the incident as testified by the victim (paras 4-5).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor (para 2).

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the Defendant's conviction (para 6).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, Chief Judge, with concurrence from J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, and Zachary A. Ives, Judge:
  The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence by examining whether, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime charged established beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the victim's testimony was not physically impossible or false on its face, thus rejecting the Defendant's argument that the jury should not have believed the victim's testimony (para 4).
  Regarding the Defendant's claim about the inconsistency in the date of the incident, the court noted that although there was a discrepancy in whether the incident occurred in October 2014 or 2015, it was within the jury's purview to resolve this conflict. The court deferred to the jury's resolution on this issue, citing testimony from the victim and Sandy Loomis of the Curry County Sheriff’s Office, which supported the 2014 date (para 5).
  The court affirmed the conviction based on the evidence presented and the jury's role in resolving testimonial conflicts and assessing credibility (para 6).