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

• A fourteen-year-old boy (Child) and a thirteen-year-old girl (Victim) were playing on a bed alone during a weekend with relatives. During the game, Child inserted his finger into Victim's vagina without her consent. Victim testified that she froze because she tends to freeze up when scared. A delinquency petition was filed against Child for criminal sexual penetration (CSP) (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sierra County: Child was adjudicated delinquent for committing CSP and found to be in need of care or rehabilitation (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the State presented insufficient evidence of "physical force" to sustain the adjudication for CSP. Offered a definition of "physical force" that suggests a requirement for violence, compulsion, or constraint, which was not met in this case (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the act of moving aside clothing and inserting a finger into the Victim's vagina constitutes "physical force" under the relevant statute, thus supporting the adjudication for CSP (paras 4-5, 7-12).

Legal Issues

• Whether moving aside clothing and inserting a finger into the Victim's vagina constitutes "physical force" under NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-11(F) (2009) for the purposes of adjudicating a child as delinquent for CSP (paras 4, 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's adjudication of Child as delinquent for CSP (para 17).

Reasons

• Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Jane B. Yohalem, and Gerald E. Baca concurred in the decision. The Court held that pushing past someone's shorts and underwear and then inserting a finger into that person's vagina is legally sufficient to constitute "physical force" under the statute. The Court rejected the Child's argument that a higher threshold of force, evidenced by violence, compulsion, or constraint, was required. It relied on statutory interpretation and precedent to conclude that no "particular quantum of force" is required beyond that sufficient to negate consent. The Court found substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Child's actions constituted "physical force" as required for CSP adjudication (paras 5-16).