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 and the Victim, who previously lived together and had a child, maintained contact after their breakup. On September 22, 2018, during a visit to see their child, the Defendant allegedly forced the Victim into non-consensual sexual intercourse after a struggle, during which the Victim claimed she was choked and restrained against her will (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual penetration, aggravated battery on a household member, and false imprisonment.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in not striking a biased juror, excluding Victim’s out-of-court statements, and that the evidence did not support the conviction for aggravated battery. Also claimed double jeopardy for convictions of CSP and false imprisonment, and that the destruction of jury questionnaires violated constitutional rights (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the district court acted within its discretion regarding jury selection and evidence admission, and that the convictions were supported by evidence. Contended that the destruction of jury questionnaires was in compliance with procedural rules.

Legal Issues

• Did the district court err in failing to strike a juror for cause?
• Was the exclusion of Victim’s out-of-court statements erroneous?
• Was there prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments?
• Did the convictions for CSP and false imprisonment violate double jeopardy?
• Did the destruction of jury questionnaires violate the Defendant’s constitutional rights?

Disposition

• The conviction for aggravated battery on a household member was reversed and remanded for retrial.
• The conviction for false imprisonment was reversed on double jeopardy grounds.
• The conviction for criminal sexual penetration was affirmed (para 63).

Reasons

Per Yohalem J. (Baca and Wray JJ. concurring):

• The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike Juror 134 for cause, as the juror did not unequivocally express bias that would prevent impartiality (paras 7-18).
• The exclusion of Victim’s out-of-court statements was not preserved for appeal, as the Defendant did not raise the same arguments at trial (paras 19-23).
• The prosecutor’s remarks in closing arguments about the pressure required to cause unconsciousness were unsupported by evidence and constituted fundamental error, impacting the conviction for aggravated battery (paras 24-35).
• The convictions for CSP and false imprisonment were based on unitary conduct, violating double jeopardy principles, as the same force was used for both offenses (paras 36-53).
• The destruction of jury questionnaires did not constitute reversible error, as no specific error requiring their review was identified (paras 54-61).