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, Jason Bailey, was convicted for second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor, his daughter, who had been placed in his custody after being removed from her mother's home due to sexual abuse by another individual. The conviction was based on incidents where the Defendant was alleged to have sexually abused the Victim in their home. The case focused on three specific incidents: two in Albuquerque and one in Rio Rancho, with the latter not under the jurisdiction of the court due to its location in Sandoval County. The incidents involved inappropriate touching under the guise of applying ointment and a shower incident deemed as sexual contact by the court (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• First trial: Directed verdict in favor of Defendant on five counts and a hung jury on the remaining four counts.
• Second trial: Defendant found guilty of criminal sexual contact of a minor as a lesser included offense of the original charge of criminal sexual penetration (para 3).
• Court of Appeals: Affirmed Defendant’s conviction in a split opinion (para 11).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that the admission of evidence regarding his uncharged conduct was improper under Rule 11-404(B)(1) NMRA and Rule 11-403 NMRA, claiming that the contact in the charged incidents was merely parental conduct that the Victim misinterpreted (paras 1, 7).
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Contended that the uncharged conduct was relevant to demonstrate the Defendant’s intent under Rule 11-404(B)(2), arguing that the evidence was necessary to rebut the Defendant’s presentations that the contact during the charged incidents occurred for hygienic, medical, or “parental” reasons (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the admission of evidence regarding an uncharged incident was correct and in accordance with Rule 11-403 and Rule 11-404(B)(2) (para 11).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant’s conviction (para 29).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Vigil, held that the evidence of the uncharged Sandoval County incident was properly admitted for the purpose of demonstrating the Defendant’s intent under Rule 11-404(B)(2), and the evidence was not unduly prejudicial under Rule 11-403. The Court emphasized the inclusionary nature of Rule 11-404(B)(2), particularly where a defendant disputes the intent element of a crime, and found that evidence of other acts directed to the victim that bear on a defendant’s specific, unlawful intent to commit the charged offense are admissible. The Court also concluded that the inherently prejudicial nature of the uncharged Sandoval County incident did not outweigh its probative value in proving an element of the State’s case, thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence under both Rule 11-404(B)(2) and Rule 11-403 (paras 13-28).