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 taking sexually explicit photographs of his live-in girlfriend's two daughters, who were under thirteen years of age. The photographs included close-ups of the children's genitalia and buttocks. The Defendant's girlfriend discovered some of these images and reported them to the police, leading to the Defendant's arrest. During a police interview, the Defendant confessed to taking the photographs and admitted to needing "counseling." Further investigation revealed many other sexualized images of children on the Defendant's computer (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, May 20, 2011, No. 32,981.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to merge the counts, wrongly determined his confession was voluntary, and should have granted his motion for mistrial (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the trial proceedings were without error, supporting the conviction and the denial of the Defendant's motions regarding merger of counts, voluntariness of confession, and mistrial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to merge the counts under double jeopardy clauses (para 10).
• Whether the district court correctly determined the Defendant's confession was voluntary (para 21).
• Whether the district court should have granted the Defendant's motion for mistrial due to references to past drug use during the trial (para 29).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on the issues of merger of counts, voluntariness of confession, and denial of mistrial. However, the matter was remanded to the district court to correct the judgment and sentence due to discrepancies between the charges and the judgment and sentence (paras 37-38).

Reasons

• CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court held that the unit of prosecution under Section 30-6A-3(D) was clear, and each photograph constituted a separate violation, thus rejecting the Defendant's double jeopardy claim (paras 14-20). Regarding the voluntariness of the confession, the court found no coercive police activity and determined the confession was voluntary based on the totality of the circumstances (paras 21-28). On the issue of mistrial, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial, as the references to past drug use were not emphasized and a cautionary instruction was given to the jury (paras 29-36).