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 for criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) and criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) based on incidents that occurred while he was babysitting the victim. The victim testified that the Defendant compelled him to touch the Defendant's penis and forced him to engage in fellatio on multiple occasions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, particularly questioning the clarity and sufficiency of the victim's testimony given the victim's tender age, the passage of time, the absence of additional eyewitness corroboration, and the lack of expert testimony. Additionally, the Defendant contended that his convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Maintained that the victim's testimony was sufficient to support the convictions for CSCM and CSPM, asserting that the testimony by itself established all the necessary elements of the offenses. The State also argued against the Defendant's double jeopardy claim, positing that the acts supporting each conviction were distinct.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for CSCM and CSPM.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The convictions for CSCM and CSPM were affirmed.

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge (with KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge and GERALD E. BACA, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the victim's testimony sufficient to support the convictions for CSCM and CSPM, citing precedent that the testimony of a minor victim can by itself establish every element of such offenses (paras 3, 9). The Court rejected the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of the evidence due to the victim's age, the time elapsed, the lack of corroboration, and the absence of expert testimony, referencing case law that the testimony of the victim need not be corroborated (para 3).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's claim that the record and docketing statement did not describe the victim's testimony with sufficient clarity. The Court held that the summary of evidence and the record were sufficient to establish the elements of the offenses under the standard of review (para 4).
  On the issue of double jeopardy, the Court concluded that the Defendant's conduct was not unitary because the CSCM and CSPM were premised on distinct acts, thus supporting separate convictions. The Court dismissed the Defendant's speculation that the convictions might have been based on unitary conduct, emphasizing that the victim's testimony indicated multiple distinct occasions of criminal conduct (paras 5-7).
  The Court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the Defendant's arguments against the sufficiency of the evidence and the double jeopardy claim (para 9).