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 and the Victim, who had known each other for several months, engaged in sexual intercourse at the Victim's home while her husband was away. Following the incident, the Victim reported to the police that the Defendant had raped her. A sexual assault nurse examiner found no physical injuries on the Victim. The Defendant claimed the intercourse was consensual, part of an ongoing sexual relationship, and suggested the Victim reported it as rape because he did not provide her with enough money (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Jerry H. Ritter Jr., District Judge, November 20, 2018: The Defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual penetration in the third degree (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the sexual intercourse was consensual, part of an ongoing relationship, and that the Victim reported it as rape due to not receiving enough money. Contended that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to introduce evidence of the prior sexual relationship with the Victim and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction (paras 1, 3, 9).
• Plaintiff (State): Objected to the Defendant's attempt to introduce evidence of a prior sexual relationship with the Victim based on failure to file a pretrial motion pursuant to Rule 11-412. Argued that the record is insufficient for the Defendant to establish that the failure to file a Rule 11-412 motion was error or that the alleged error caused prejudice (paras 3, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a Rule 11-412 motion prior to trial to allow the introduction of evidence regarding a prior sexual relationship between the Defendant and the Victim.
• Whether the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the Defendant's conviction of criminal sexual penetration (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for criminal sexual penetration in the third degree (para 20).

Reasons

• Per Stephen G. French, Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge concurring):
  The court held that the Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. It was reasoned that a reasonably competent attorney could have decided that filing a Rule 11-412 motion was unwarranted, given the low probability of success due to the nature of the evidence being considered as propensity evidence, which is restricted under New Mexico’s rape shield law. The court also found that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction, as the Victim testified to the use of physical force by the Defendant, which was a necessary element for the crime of criminal sexual penetration. The court concluded that the State presented sufficient evidence of each element required to convict the Defendant for criminal sexual penetration (paras 5-20).