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

• In 2019, a deputy from the San Juan County Sheriff’s Office, posing online as a fourteen-year-old girl, received a response from the Defendant, a thirty-five-year-old male, to an ad asking how to spend the weekend. The Defendant, after being informed of the deputy's purported age, engaged in nonsexual then sexual communications over several days, culminating in arrangements to meet for sexual acts. Upon arrival at the designated meeting place, the Defendant was arrested. He admitted to the police his awareness of the wrongfulness of his actions (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County: Denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges against him, following his conditional guilty plea to two counts of child solicitation by electronic communication device.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the district court erred by finding that the notice requirement in NMSA 1978, Section 30-37-4 did not apply to prosecutions under Section 30-37-3.2, thereby improperly denying his motion to dismiss (para 1).
• State: Responded that Section 30-37-4 does not apply to solicitation charges under Section 30-37-3.2. Even if notice was required, the Defendant had constructive notice because the statute is published on the state’s website (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the notice requirement of Section 30-37-4 applies to prosecutions brought under Section 30-37-3.2.
• If the notice requirement does not apply to Section 30-37-3.2, whether Section 30-37-3.2 should be declared void for vagueness or the rule of lenity applied.

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to dismiss was affirmed (para 27).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep and Megan P. Duffy concurring, held that the notice requirement of Section 30-37-4 does not apply to prosecutions under Section 30-37-3.2. The Court reasoned that Section 30-37-3.2, which prohibits solicitation of minors through electronic communications, does not fall within the scope of "matters" or "performances" as contemplated by Section 30-37-4. The Court further found no ambiguity in Sections 30-37-3.2 and 30-37-4 that would necessitate the application of the rule of lenity. Additionally, the Court rejected the Defendant's void for vagueness argument, concluding that Section 30-37-3.2 provides clear notice of the prohibited conduct, thereby not violating the Defendant's due process rights (paras 10-26).