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 his ten-year-old stepdaughter in 1968 and engaging in other criminal acts involving minors, including criminal sexual contact and contributing to the delinquency of minors. After the alleged crimes, the Defendant left New Mexico and resided in Texas for approximately eleven years, occasionally returning to New Mexico for personal and business matters (paras 1, 3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Eddy County, March 1989: The Defendant was convicted of rape of a child, criminal sexual contact of a minor, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fourteen years, with sentences enhanced due to aggravating circumstances and ordered to run consecutively (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the tolling provision of the criminal statute of limitations violated his constitutional rights to travel and equal protection. He also challenged the sufficiency of charges, jury instructions, the admissibility of evidence related to his nolo contendere plea, and the trial court's sentencing, including the consideration of aggravating circumstances (paras 2, 5, 12, 15, 19, 22).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Defended the application of the tolling provision, the sufficiency of the charges, the jury instructions, the admissibility of evidence, and the sentencing, arguing that all were consistent with the law and did not violate the Defendant's rights.
Legal Issues
- Did the tolling provision of the criminal statute of limitations violate the Defendant's constitutional rights to travel and equal protection?
- Were the charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor properly brought within the statute of limitations?
- Did the trial court err in failing to instruct the jury on time limitations for certain charges?
- Was the evidence of the Defendant's nolo contendere plea improperly admitted at trial?
- Did the trial court err in its sentencing, including the consideration of aggravating circumstances?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions and sentences (para 1).
Reasons
Per Sosa CJ. (Ransom and Baca JJ. concurring):
Tolling Provision and Constitutional Rights: The Court held that the tolling provision of the criminal statute of limitations, which paused the limitation period during the Defendant's voluntary absence from New Mexico, did not violate his constitutional rights to travel or equal protection. The provision was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in ensuring accountability for criminal conduct and avoiding the burdens of extradition (paras 3-10).
Sufficiency of Charges: The Court found that the charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor were properly brought within the statute of limitations. The criminal information sufficiently alleged the offenses, and the Defendant's nolo contendere pleas did not preclude the charges (paras 11-14).
Jury Instructions: The Court determined that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on time limitations, as the offenses occurred within the applicable limitation period, and the instructions given were consistent with statutory requirements (paras 15-18).
Admissibility of Evidence: The Court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the Defendant's nolo contendere plea to impeach his testimony. The evidence was relevant to challenge the credibility of the Defendant's statements (paras 19-21).
Sentencing: The Court upheld the trial court's sentencing, finding no abuse of discretion. The consideration of the victims' minority as an aggravating circumstance was permissible, as it related to the Defendant's pattern of conduct. Other aggravating factors, such as the Defendant's lack of remorse and failure to accept responsibility, were also validly considered (paras 22-29).