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, Aaron Bahr, who was convicted of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and two counts of attempted CSPM. The incidents occurred while the Defendant was responsible for watching the children, including the victims, during the absence of their mother, T.B., due to work. The first attempted assault on Y.B., T.B.'s daughter from a previous relationship, happened between 2011 and 2017 in Bloomfield, and the second in Aztec in 2019. Y.B. also witnessed the Defendant sexually assaulting I.B., her half-sister, in Aztec. The assaults were not immediately reported due to threats from the Defendant and fear of disbelief. The case came to light when T.B. proposed sending the children to visit the Defendant in Arizona, prompting Y.B. to disclose the assaults, leading to the Defendant's charges in July 2020 (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction for CSPM and contended that the statute of limitations barred one of his convictions for attempted CSPM (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction for CSPM and argued that the statute of limitations for one of the attempted CSPM convictions was tolled, thus not barring the conviction (paras 12, 15, 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for CSPM.
• Whether the statute of limitations barred one of the Defendant's convictions for attempted CSPM.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction on both counts: one for CSPM and the other for attempted CSPM (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judge Megan P. Duffy, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Michael D. Bustamante concurring, provided the following reasons:
  Sufficient Evidence for CSPM Conviction: The Court found that substantial evidence supported the Defendant's conviction for CSPM, including testimony about the assault and subsequent pain reported by the victim, I.B. The Court held that a rational jury could find the essential facts required for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 6-11).
  Statute of Limitations for Attempted CSPM: The Court determined that the statute of limitations for one of the attempted CSPM convictions (Count 1) was not barred. It concluded that the statute of limitations was tolled due to the Defendant's absence from the state and that the prosecution was timely based on when the Defendant left New Mexico and when the crime occurred. The Court also found that the conduct underlying Count 1 occurred within the limitations period, based on the evidence presented at trial (paras 12-23).