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 multiple instances of sexual assault against his eight-year-old daughter, H.T., and his four-year-old step-daughter, L.T. The assaults included criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM), criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), and kidnapping. Both victims and a physician's assistant who examined them testified at trial (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, April 20, 2015, No. 35,182; Certiorari Denied, April 10, 2015, No. 35,190.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued insufficient evidence for most CSPM and CSCM convictions, failure to prove two counts of CSPM were distinct, kidnapping charges were incidental to sexual assault and not separate crimes, jury instructions were contradictory, and error in allowing non-expert witness testimony on consistency with sexual abuse (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that evidence was sufficient to support convictions, the jury instructions were appropriate, and the PA's testimony was permissible.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for CSPM and CSCM.
• Whether the State failed to prove two counts of CSPM were separate and distinct.
• Whether the conduct charged as kidnapping was incidental to sexual assault and not a separate crime.
• Whether the jury instructions were contradictory, resulting in fundamental error.
• Whether the district court erred by allowing a non-expert witness to testify that her findings were consistent with sexual abuse (para 1).

Disposition

• Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the opinion (para 1).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge: Affirmed most of the defendant's convictions but reversed the kidnapping charges, finding the movements and restraints described in the testimony were incidental to the sexual assaults and did not support separate kidnapping convictions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the CSPM and CSCM convictions, determined the jury instructions did not fundamentally confuse the jury, and upheld the PA's testimony as it was within the bounds agreed upon by both parties (paras 3-40).
  CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge: Concurred with the majority opinion.
  TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, (concurring in part, dissenting in part): Agreed with the majority but would reverse the defendant’s conviction of CSPM alleged in Count 13 and remand for the entry of an amended judgment and resentencing on the lesser included offense of CSCM for Count 13, arguing that the evidence did not support the conviction for CSPM as the victim testified no penetration occurred (paras 43-47).