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 charged with multiple sexual offenses against his biological daughter, including criminal sexual penetration (CSP), attempted CSP, criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), and incest. The alleged offenses occurred over several years, beginning when the victim was under thirteen. The victim testified to repeated instances of sexual abuse, including digital and penile penetration, and inappropriate touching. The Defendant denied all allegations (paras 1, 3-4, 6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: The Defendant was convicted of six consolidated counts, including CSCM, incest, attempted CSP, attempted incest, and two counts of CSP of a minor (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the victim's testimony was not credible and insufficient to support convictions for attempted CSP and attempted incest; (2) the jury instructions improperly allowed conviction for CSCM based on touching "either/or" two distinct body parts, violating unanimity requirements; (3) the admission of prior consistent statements was erroneous as they were inconsistent with the victim's trial testimony; and (4) the broad time spans in the jury instructions denied him notice and the ability to defend (paras 2, 5, 12, 18, 26).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that (1) the victim's testimony was sufficient for conviction, as credibility determinations are within the jury's purview; (2) the jury instructions properly reflected alternative means of committing CSCM; (3) the prior consistent statements were admissible to rebut claims of fabrication; and (4) the time frames in the jury instructions were reasonable and did not prejudice the Defendant (paras 5, 12, 18, 26).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the convictions for attempted CSP and attempted incest?
- Did the jury instructions for CSCM improperly negate the requirement for a unanimous verdict?
- Did the district court err in admitting prior consistent statements under Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b) NMRA?
- Did the broad time spans in the jury instructions violate the Defendant's right to notice and ability to defend?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions on all counts (para 31).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Wechsler and Robinson JJ. concurring):
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court held that the victim's testimony, though uncorroborated and partially impeached, was sufficient to support the convictions for attempted CSP and attempted incest. The jury was entitled to assess credibility, and appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the jury (paras 5-11).
Jury Instructions for CSCM: The Court found that the jury instructions properly allowed conviction based on alternative means of committing CSCM (touching the victim's breasts or vagina). These were not distinct elements but alternative ways to satisfy the statutory requirement of touching "intimate parts." The instructions did not violate unanimity requirements (paras 12-17).
Admission of Prior Consistent Statements: The Court ruled that the prior consistent statements were admissible to rebut claims of fabrication. While there were discrepancies regarding oral sexual contact, the statements were substantially similar to the victim's trial testimony regarding sexual contact more broadly. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements (paras 18-25).
Broad Time Spans in Jury Instructions: The Court concluded that the Defendant failed to preserve this issue for appeal, as he did not object to the jury instructions at trial. Additionally, the Defendant did not demonstrate prejudice or argue that the State failed to narrow the time frames reasonably. Without a developed record, the Court declined to address the issue further (paras 26-30).