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 followed the Victim on her way to work, repeatedly offering her a ride, which she declined. Eventually, he blocked her path with his car, threatened her with what she believed to be a gun, and demanded oral sex. A physical altercation ensued, interrupted by a truck horn, allowing the Victim to escape. The Defendant was later identified by the Victim and apprehended after being beaten by bystanders (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit a violent felony, attempted criminal sexual penetration in the third degree, and attempted kidnapping in the second degree, all with firearm enhancements. The jury found insufficient evidence for the firearm enhancements (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that two convictions violated double jeopardy protections, the district court erred in excluding photographs of his beaten face, and the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, the exclusion of photographs was proper, and there was no double jeopardy violation.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for attempted kidnapping, attempted criminal sexual penetration, and assault with intent to commit a violent felony?
- Did the Defendant’s convictions violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy?
- Did the district court err in excluding photographs of the Defendant’s beaten face from evidence?
Disposition
- The conviction for attempted criminal sexual penetration in the third degree was vacated due to double jeopardy concerns (para 25).
- The convictions for attempted kidnapping in the second degree and assault with intent to commit a violent felony were affirmed (para 33).
Reasons
Per Bustamante CJ. (Sutin and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Sufficiency of Evidence:
The court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions. The Defendant’s actions, including blocking the Victim’s path, threatening her with a cold object believed to be a gun, and physically struggling with her, demonstrated intent and substantial steps toward committing the charged offenses (paras 8-13).
Double Jeopardy:
- The court determined that the convictions for attempted criminal sexual penetration and assault with intent to commit a violent felony were based on unitary conduct and that the legislature did not intend multiple punishments for these offenses. As a result, the lesser offense of attempted criminal sexual penetration was vacated (paras 17-25).
- However, the court found that the conduct underlying the attempted kidnapping charge was distinct from the assault, as the jury could infer that the attempted kidnapping was completed during earlier encounters when the Defendant offered the Victim a ride with deceptive intent (paras 27-29).
Exclusion of Photographs:
The court upheld the exclusion of photographs of the Defendant’s beaten face, reasoning that their probative value was minimal and outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and jury confusion. The photographs were deemed irrelevant to the central issues, as the Victim and another witness corroborated the identification of the Defendant (paras 30-32).
The court concluded by affirming the convictions for attempted kidnapping and assault with intent to commit a violent felony while vacating the conviction for attempted criminal sexual penetration (para 33).