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 case involves the Defendant, David Crane, who was charged with two crimes under the same statute for the sexual solicitation of minors via an electronic communication device. The charges stemmed from a series of message exchanges on social media between the Defendant and a police deputy posing as a thirteen-year-old. These exchanges began on January 18, 2019, and concluded on January 30, 2019, when the Defendant arranged a meeting and was arrested upon arrival (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the two convictions under Section 30-37-3.2 violated principles of double jeopardy and contended that the evidence was not properly authenticated because the screenshots from the "Whisper" application lacked foundational support (paras 1, 6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the convictions were valid under the statute and argued that the screenshots were properly authenticated according to the traditional standard, which does not require conclusive demonstration of authorship (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's two convictions under Section 30-37-3.2 violate principles of double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting certain evidence at trial due to improper authentication (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of the Defendant for both charges (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Ives with Judges Baca and Medina concurring, found that the Defendant did not adequately develop an argument to support his double jeopardy claim, failing to provide a comprehensive "unit of prosecution" analysis. The Court followed a two-step analysis for double jeopardy claims, determining that the Defendant's argument did not sufficiently address whether the Legislature intended punishment for each discrete act or the entire course of conduct. Additionally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to admit the screenshots from the "Whisper" application, concluding that the evidence was properly authenticated under Rule 11-901 NMRA. Judge Medina specially concurred, providing a separate analysis on the double jeopardy argument, emphasizing that there was sufficient indicia of distinctness between the Defendant's acts to support two separate convictions under Section 30-37-3.2 (paras 1-12).