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 accused of sexually assaulting and abusing his then-girlfriend's minor daughter on multiple occasions between February and December 2020. The specific incidents in question for this appeal occurred on February 2, 2020, when the Defendant allegedly touched the victim's unclothed breasts and engaged in anal intercourse with her (paras 2 and 5).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County: The Defendant was convicted of six counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM), one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), and one count of child abuse (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that his convictions for CSPM and CSCM on February 2, 2020, violated the double jeopardy clause, as they constituted multiple punishments for the same conduct (para 2).
- Appellee: The State contended that the offenses were distinct, with separate acts of touching and penetration, and thus did not violate double jeopardy (para 6).
Legal Issues
- Do the Defendant's convictions for CSPM and CSCM on February 2, 2020, violate the double jeopardy clause by constituting multiple punishments for the same conduct?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions, finding no violation of the double jeopardy clause (para 12).
Reasons
Per Attrep CJ. (Medina and Wray JJ. concurring): The Court applied the two-part test from Swafford v. State to determine whether the conduct was unitary and whether the Legislature intended separate punishments. The Court found that the Defendant's conduct was not unitary, as the acts of touching and penetration were distinct, separated by an intervening event (removal of clothing), and involved different body parts. The qualitative difference between the acts further supported the conclusion that they were separate offenses. Therefore, the double jeopardy clause was not violated (paras 3-11).