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 of two counts of criminal sexual penetration (CSP) in the second degree of a child between thirteen and eighteen. The case involved issues related to the Defendant's rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments during police interviews and the jury's request to review interview transcripts during deliberation.

Procedural History

• Order of Certification to the New Mexico Supreme Court, State v. Mares, A-1-CA-37950 (N.M. Ct. App. June 4, 2021): The Court of Appeals certified the issue of whether the Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right was violated to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
• State v. Mares, 2024-NMSC-002, 543 P.3d 1198: The New Mexico Supreme Court concluded that the Defendant validly waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel through his waiver of Miranda rights and instructed the Court of Appeals to resolve the Defendant’s remaining claims.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress due to a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interviews; (2) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his Fifth Amendment right to silence was violated when the police did not stop the interview upon his expression of discomfort; and (3) the district court improperly denied the jury's request to review the transcripts of his interview with police, which violated his rights to a fair trial and to present a defense.
• Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to develop an adequate legal argument regarding his Fifth Amendment claim and failed to preserve the issue regarding the jury's request for transcripts for review.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress based on an alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress based on an alleged violation of his Fifth Amendment right to silence.
• Whether the district court improperly denied the jury's request to review the transcripts of the Defendant's interview with police, affecting his rights to a fair trial and to present a defense.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.

Reasons

• Per BOGARDUS, J., with ATTREP, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON, Judge, concurring:
  The Court of Appeals declined to address the Defendant's Fifth Amendment claim due to inadequate legal argumentation presented on appeal (para 3).
  The Court found that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue regarding the jury's request for transcripts for appellate review. The Defendant had concurred with the State's position that the transcript could not be provided to the jury as it was not admitted into evidence (para 4).
  The Court declined to review for fundamental error regarding the jury's request for transcripts as the Defendant failed to raise this issue in his brief in chief, thus depriving the State of an opportunity to respond (para 5).