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, a psychologist, was charged with multiple counts of second-degree and third-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP II and CSP III) involving an adult patient. The charges stemmed from allegations that the Defendant engaged in sexual relations with the patient during therapy sessions, allegedly exploiting a psychological phenomenon known as "transference." The patient was said to have been unable to understand the consequences of the sexual acts due to this phenomenon (paras 1, 5-7).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury on four counts of CSP II and five counts of CSP III. The trial court granted the Defendant's motion for separate trials for each victim and the embezzlement charge, and the State proceeded with charges involving only one victim (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that consensual sexual relations between a therapist and an adult patient are not criminal under New Mexico law, as the legislature has not enacted a statute specifically prohibiting such conduct. The Defendant contended that the State's reliance on the transference phenomenon to establish "force or coercion" under the CSP statute was an overreach and that the statutory language did not encompass the alleged conduct (paras 2-3, 8, 10-11).
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Asserted that the Defendant's actions constituted CSP II and CSP III because the transference phenomenon rendered the victim incapable of understanding the consequences of the sexual acts. The State relied on expert testimony to argue that the Defendant used his position as a therapist to exploit the victim's psychological vulnerability (paras 5-7, 9).
Legal Issues
- Whether consensual sexual relations between a therapist and an adult patient constitute criminal sexual penetration under New Mexico law (paras 2-3).
- Whether the transference phenomenon, as presented in expert testimony, is sufficient to establish "force or coercion" under the CSP statute (para 10).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's convictions and instructed the trial court to dismiss the criminal charges and discharge the Defendant (para 1).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Donnelly J. concurring):
The Court held that the Defendant's conduct did not meet the statutory requirements for CSP II or CSP III. The CSP statute requires proof of "force or coercion," which includes situations where the victim suffers from a mental condition rendering them incapable of understanding the nature or consequences of the act. The Court found that the transference phenomenon, as described by the State's experts, was insufficient to satisfy this requirement. The statutory language did not clearly encompass the Defendant's conduct, and penal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused (paras 4, 8, 11-12).
The Court emphasized that the legislature, not the judiciary, is responsible for defining crimes. If the legislature wishes to criminalize sexual relations between therapists and patients, it must enact a specific statute to that effect, as has been done in other jurisdictions (paras 13-15).
Per Bivins J. (Specially Concurring):
Bivins J. agreed with the majority's conclusion but provided additional reasoning. He argued that the statutory language should be strictly construed to apply only to cases involving severe mental incapacity, not to situations where the victim is aware of the act but allegedly unable to understand its long-term consequences. He expressed concern that accepting the State's theory would lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and potentially render the statute unconstitutionally vague. Bivins J. also noted that the Defendant's conduct, while reprehensible, could be addressed through other legal remedies, such as professional discipline or civil liability, rather than criminal prosecution under the CSP statute (paras 17-43).