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 criminal sexual penetration and child abuse by endangerment after babysitting a two-and-a-half-year-old child. The child sustained a bruise on her labia, which she attributed to the Defendant pinching her. The child made similar statements to her parents and medical personnel. By the time of trial, the child, then five years old, could not recall the events (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual penetration and child abuse by endangerment.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the child’s out-of-court statements were inadmissible under hearsay rules and violated the Confrontation Clause. Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the child abuse conviction and that the jury instructions were erroneous. Also challenged the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment and the delay in the life enhancement sentencing proceeding (paras 5, 36-37, 48-49, 57-60).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the child’s statements were admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule and bore sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the Confrontation Clause. Argued that the evidence supported the convictions and that the trial court acted within its discretion regarding jury instructions, prior convictions, and sentencing proceedings (paras 6-7, 19-21, 36, 48-49, 57-60).
Legal Issues
- Were the child’s out-of-court statements admissible under hearsay exceptions and consistent with the Confrontation Clause?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the convictions for criminal sexual penetration and child abuse by endangerment?
- Did the trial court err in including an unsupported theory of cunnilingus in the jury instructions?
- Did the trial court err in ruling that the Defendant’s prior conviction could be used for impeachment purposes?
- Did the delay in the life enhancement sentencing proceeding violate the Defendant’s rights?
Disposition
- The conviction for child abuse by endangerment was reversed (para 47).
- The conviction for criminal sexual penetration was affirmed (para 65).
- The case was remanded for re-sentencing (para 65).
Reasons
Per Bosson CJ. (Bustamante and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Admissibility of Child’s Statements: The child’s statements to her parents were inadmissible under the present sense impression exception due to the time lapse but were admissible under the catch-all hearsay exception. The statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the Confrontation Clause. Similarly, the child’s statements to medical personnel were admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception and met constitutional reliability standards (paras 6-18, 19-35).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The evidence supported the conviction for criminal sexual penetration under the theory of digital penetration. However, the evidence was insufficient to support the child abuse by endangerment conviction, as the Defendant’s conduct did not meet the threshold of reckless disregard or substantial risk (paras 40-42, 43-47).
Jury Instructions: The inclusion of the unsupported theory of cunnilingus in the jury instructions was erroneous but did not warrant reversal, as there was substantial evidence supporting the alternative theory of digital penetration (paras 36-39).
Impeachment by Prior Conviction: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the Defendant’s 1986 conviction could be used for impeachment purposes if he testified. The ruling was consistent with Rule 11-609, and the Defendant’s decision not to testify precluded further review of this issue (paras 48-55).
Life Enhancement Sentencing Proceeding: The delay in the life enhancement sentencing proceeding did not violate the Defendant’s rights, as there was no evidence of substantial prejudice or intentional delay by the State (paras 57-63).