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, Adan M. Carrillo, was convicted by a jury on June 28, 2007, of two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The Defendant appealed the convictions, challenging, among other things, the jury instructions related to the CSPM counts as being identical and thus violating his double jeopardy rights (para 2).

Procedural History

• State v. Carrillo, No. 28,258, slip op. at 2 (N.M. Ct. App. Jul. 14, 2011): The Court of Appeals reversed the second CSPM conviction based on double jeopardy concerns due to identical jury instructions (para 3).
• State v. Carrillo, 2011-NMCERT-, __ N.M., __ P.3d__: The Supreme Court of New Mexico granted the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State): Argued that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the Defendant engaged in fellatio with the Victim on more than one occasion, thus the verdicts did not violate double jeopardy (para 4).
• Defendant-Respondent (Carrillo): Contended that the jury convicted him twice for the same conduct due to receiving identical jury instructions for the two counts of CSPM, which constituted a violation of his double jeopardy rights (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the two identical jury instructions, in light of the evidence presented, violated the Defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy (para 4).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Defendant’s conviction for the second count of CSPM (para 13).

Reasons

• Per RICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice (with PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Chief Justice, EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice, CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice, PAUL J. KENNEDY, Justice concurring):
  The Court decided the case by unpublished decision, noting that the legal issues were previously decided and only the application of facts to law in this particular case was at issue (para 1). The Court reviewed constitutional questions of double jeopardy de novo and considered precedents where identical jury instructions did not violate double jeopardy rights when there was evidence of distinct incidents (paras 5-8). Despite the Victim's inability to provide specific details due to her young age, the Court found that the evidence, particularly the Victim's testimony about the frequency and locations of the incidents, supported a conclusion that more than one distinct act of CSPM occurred (paras 9-11). The Court acknowledged the challenges in prosecuting child sexual assault cases and the State's restraint in charging only two counts of CSPM. It concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings and avoid double jeopardy concerns, thereby reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the second CSPM conviction (paras 12-13).