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 by a jury of one count of criminal sexual penetration of a minor in the first degree (child under 13), two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree (child under 13), one count of bribery of a witness (threats or bribes - reporting), and two counts of child abuse (intentionally caused, no death or great bodily harm) (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge, April 14, 2016: Conviction of one count of criminal sexual penetration of a minor in the first degree (child under 13), two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree (child under 13), one count of bribery of a witness (threats or bribes - reporting), and two counts of child abuse (intentionally caused, no death or great bodily harm).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on other bad acts testimony elicited by the State and contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts (paras 2-5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the trial court's decisions and opposed the Defendant's appeal, arguing for the affirmation of the convictions based on the presumption of correctness of the trial court's rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial (paras 3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for mistrial based on other bad acts testimony elicited by the State.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, sentence, and commitment (para 8).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, with James J. Wechsler, Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring:
  The Court issued a calendar notice proposing summary affirmance due to the Defendant's failure to provide sufficient facts to challenge the presumption of correctness in favor of the trial court’s rulings. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not point to any specific errors in fact or in law in the Court's notice of proposed disposition. Instead, it requested that the case be placed on the general calendar for a more detailed review, which the Court found unnecessary for adequate appellate review (paras 1, 3, 6-8).
  Regarding the motion for mistrial based on other bad acts testimony, the Court noted that the Defendant's amended docketing statement did not provide enough information to determine whether any prior bad act evidence was admitted or otherwise put before the jury. The Court proposed to affirm the district court’s denial of the Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the presumption of correctness and the Defendant's failure to provide sufficient facts on appeal (paras 4).
  On the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the guilty verdicts, the Court observed that contrary evidence supporting acquittal does not provide a basis for reversal because the jury is free to reject the Defendant’s version of the facts. The Court suggested that the Defendant had not met his burden on appeal to demonstrate that the trial court erred, again citing the presumption of correctness and the Defendant's failure to provide sufficient facts (para 5).