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 operated an escort service, Enchanting Escorts, which was investigated by undercover police officers for alleged prostitution activities. The investigation revealed that escorts were instructed to collect agency fees and could earn additional money through sexual acts, despite the business claiming to prohibit prostitution. The Defendant provided instructions on screening clients and encouraged safe sex if escorts engaged in prostitution. The charges arose from incidents involving undercover officers posing as clients and job applicants (paras 3-10).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: The Defendant was convicted on four counts of promoting prostitution and one count of accepting earnings of a prostitute. The sentence was enhanced due to the Defendant's status as a habitual offender (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in providing an incorrect jury instruction defining "masturbation," which improperly expanded the scope of criminal conduct under the statute (paras 11-14).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the jury instruction and maintained that the evidence supported the convictions.
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err in providing an incorrect definitional jury instruction on "masturbation" that improperly expanded the scope of criminal conduct under the statute?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial (para 20).
Reasons
Per Flores J. (Donnelly and Hartz JJ. concurring):
The trial court's jury instruction defining "masturbation" included an impermissible alternative—stimulation by "sexual fantasies"—which is not supported by the statutory definition of a "sexual act" under New Mexico law. The inclusion of this alternative improperly extended the scope of criminal conduct and could have led the jury to convict the Defendant based on legally insufficient grounds. The Court emphasized that the statutory definition of "sexual act" requires some form of physical touching, which "sexual fantasies" do not involve. The erroneous instruction constituted reversible error, as it was impossible to determine whether the jury relied on the impermissible alternative to convict the Defendant. The Court ordered a new trial, instructing that any future jury instructions omit the reference to "sexual fantasies" (paras 11-20).