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 case involves two defendants, charged with criminal sexual contact of minors under the age of thirteen. The incidents included allegations of inappropriate touching, with one defendant accused of fondling a child in a bar restroom and the other accused of prolonged inappropriate contact with a minor in a vehicle. Both defendants denied the allegations, claiming the incidents did not occur (paras 10-11).

Procedural History

• District Court: Both defendants were convicted of criminal sexual contact of a minor and other related offenses.
• Court of Appeals: Certified the cases to the Supreme Court to address whether the omission of an instruction on the element of "unlawfulness" in the jury instructions constituted fundamental error requiring reversal (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant Orosco: Argued that the omission of the "unlawfulness" element in the jury instructions constituted fundamental error and that his convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence, particularly regarding accessorial liability (paras 5, 26-30).
• Defendant Trevino: Contended that the omission of the "unlawfulness" element required automatic reversal and challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting his convictions, particularly regarding the use of authority to coerce the victim (paras 5, 22-24).
• State of New Mexico: Asserted that the omission of the "unlawfulness" element did not constitute fundamental error because the element was not factually in issue, and the evidence overwhelmingly supported the convictions (paras 9-12).

Legal Issues

• Was the omission of the "unlawfulness" element in the jury instructions a fundamental error requiring reversal?
• Was there sufficient evidence to support the convictions of the defendants?
• Did the convictions of contributing to the delinquency of a minor violate double jeopardy principles?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of both defendants for criminal sexual contact of a minor (paras 3, 33).
• The Court severed the issue of Trevino's convictions for contributing to the delinquency of a minor for further consideration (paras 2, 33).

Reasons

Per Montgomery J. (Baca, Franchini, and Frost JJ. concurring):

• Fundamental Error: The Court held that the omission of the "unlawfulness" element in the jury instructions did not constitute fundamental error because the element was not factually in issue in either case. The evidence presented left no doubt that the alleged acts, if committed, were unlawful. The jury's findings necessarily included a determination of unlawfulness (paras 9-12, 20).
• Sufficiency of Evidence:
  • For Trevino, the Court found substantial evidence that he used his position of authority to coerce the victim, as the jury was properly instructed on this element and reached its verdict accordingly (paras 22-24).
  • For Orosco, the Court determined that there was sufficient evidence of affirmative conduct supporting accessorial liability, as well as corroboration of the victim's prior inconsistent statements (paras 26-31).
• Double Jeopardy: The Court deferred its decision on Trevino's convictions for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as this issue required further consideration (para 21).

Special Concurrence by Ransom C.J.:

• Ransom C.J. agreed with the majority's decision but expressed concerns about the abandonment of the term "jurisdictional error" in favor of a case-by-case analysis of fundamental error. He emphasized the importance of maintaining bright-line rules while acknowledging the necessity of the "necessarily established" exception to the jurisdictional error doctrine (paras 35-37).