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 was convicted of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) for allegedly touching the buttocks of a seven-year-old child, M.C., while hugging her goodnight. The Defendant lived with his girlfriend and her daughter, who was a close friend of M.C., and was often alone with the children. The Defendant denied any inappropriate intent, and the State presented no evidence beyond M.C.'s testimony (paras 3-7).

Procedural History

• Trial Court, September 20, 1989: The Defendant was convicted of one count of CSCM and sentenced to three years in prison and two years of parole, with an additional sentence for failure to appear (para 3).
• Court of Appeals (N/A): Certified questions to the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the CSCM statute and the adequacy of jury instructions (paras 1, 15).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the CSCM statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the absence of a jury instruction on "unlawfulness" as an element of the offense constituted fundamental error (paras 10, 13, 15).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that "unlawfulness" in the CSCM statute establishes a defense rather than an element of the offense, and that the Defendant waived any error by objecting to the trial court's proposed instruction on unlawfulness (paras 12, 16, 34).

Legal Issues

• Is "unlawfulness" an essential element of the offense under the CSCM statute?
• Did the Defendant waive any claim of error by objecting to the trial court's proposed instruction on unlawfulness?
• Does the absence of a jury instruction on unlawfulness constitute fundamental error?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial (para 44).

Reasons

Per Montgomery J. (Ransom and Franchini JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that "unlawfulness" is an essential element of the CSCM offense, as the statutory language requires the State to prove that the touching was both "unlawful" and "intentional." The Court rejected the State's argument that "unlawfulness" merely establishes a defense (paras 16-20, 33).
• The Court emphasized that the absence of a jury instruction on unlawfulness left the jury unable to determine whether the Defendant's actions were innocent or improper, creating uncertainty in the conviction. This omission constituted fundamental error, as it failed to ensure that all essential elements of the offense were proven (paras 30-31, 41).
• The Court clarified that fundamental error cannot be waived, even if the Defendant objected to the trial court's proposed instruction. The trial court has a duty to instruct the jury on all essential elements of the offense, and failure to do so undermines the fairness of the trial (paras 37-40).
• The Court suggested a revised jury instruction to address the element of unlawfulness, requiring the State to prove that the touching was done in a manner calculated to arouse or gratify sexual desire or otherwise intrude upon the child's bodily integrity or personal safety (para 32).