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 of multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration and contact with minors under thirteen, as well as intimidation of a witness. The charges involved two victims, both of whom were the Defendant's adopted daughters. The alleged acts occurred over several years while the victims lived with the Defendant (paras 1, 16).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of seven counts of criminal sexual penetration, eight counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor, and two counts of intimidation of a witness.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the prosecutor impermissibly commented on his right to remain silent and that the district court abused its discretion by not severing the charges related to each child (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant did not invoke his right to remain silent and that the evidence was cross-admissible, justifying the joinder of charges (paras 3, 9).
Legal Issues
- Did the prosecutor impermissibly comment on the Defendant's right to remain silent?
- Did the district court abuse its discretion by failing to sever the charges relating to each child?
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were affirmed (para 24).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Hanisee and Yohalem JJ. concurring):
Right to Remain Silent: The court found that the Defendant did not invoke his right to remain silent at the CYFD Family Centered Meeting, as he did not attend or indicate that his absence was an assertion of this right. Therefore, any comments by the prosecutor on the Defendant's silence were not constitutionally prohibited (paras 3-7).
Severance of Charges: The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the charges. The evidence was deemed cross-admissible as it demonstrated a unique pattern attributable to the Defendant, relevant to identity and modus operandi. The probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect (paras 9-22).