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 five counts of third-degree criminal sexual penetration. The incident involved the Defendant driving the Victim to a secluded location, where he forcibly engaged in multiple acts of sexual penetration, including vaginal, oral, and digital penetration, despite the Victim's protests. The Victim testified that she complied out of fear due to the Defendant's violent tendencies when under the influence of drugs (paras 1, 186).

Procedural History

• Trial Court: The Defendant was convicted of five counts of third-degree criminal sexual penetration after a bench trial (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant/Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony without conducting a Daubert/Alberico reliability determination, that the denial of a motion for continuance was improper, that the five convictions violated double jeopardy principles, and that there was insufficient evidence of force or coercion. Additionally, the Defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and sought additional presentence confinement credit (paras 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15).
• State/Appellee: Contended that the trial court properly admitted expert testimony, the denial of the continuance was within its discretion, the convictions did not violate double jeopardy, and sufficient evidence supported the findings of force or coercion. The State also argued that the Defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel or entitlement to additional presentence confinement credit (paras 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15).

Legal Issues

• Did the trial court err in admitting expert testimony without conducting a Daubert/Alberico reliability determination?
• Was the denial of the Defendant’s motion for a continuance an abuse of discretion?
• Did the five convictions for criminal sexual penetration violate double jeopardy principles under the unit of prosecution doctrine?
• Was there sufficient evidence of force or coercion to support the convictions?
• Was the Defendant entitled to additional presentence confinement credit?
• Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions on all counts (para 1).

Reasons

Per Vigil J. (Robles and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

Expert Testimony: The Court held that the Defendant failed to preserve a Daubert/Alberico objection to the SANE practitioner’s testimony regarding the Victim’s injuries. The objection raised at trial pertained to qualifications, not reliability or validity. The SANE practitioner was deemed qualified under Rule 11-702 NMRA, and no plain or fundamental error was found. Additionally, the Defendant could not claim reversible error for testimony he himself elicited during cross-examination (paras 4-6, 8-9).

Critical Incident Amnesia: The Court found no error in admitting testimony on "critical incident amnesia" from the SANE practitioner and a therapist. The testimony was based on their training and experience, and neither expert diagnosed the Victim. The Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from this testimony (paras 10-12).

Motion for Continuance: The denial of the motion for a continuance was upheld. The Defendant did not articulate specific reasons for the continuance, such as securing an expert witness, nor did he address the factors courts consider when evaluating such motions. The trial court acted within its discretion (paras 13-15).

Double Jeopardy: The Court applied the six-factor Herron framework and determined that the five acts of penetration were sufficiently distinct to constitute separate offenses. Factors such as temporal proximity, victim repositioning, intervening events, and sequencing of penetrations supported this conclusion (paras 16-20).

Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found sufficient evidence of force or coercion. The Victim’s testimony, coupled with the Defendant’s actions and statements, supported the trial court’s findings (paras 21-22).

Presentence Confinement Credit: The Court declined to rule on the Defendant’s claim for additional presentence confinement credit due to an insufficient record. The Defendant was advised to pursue relief through a motion or petition under Rule 5-801 or Rule 5-802 NMRA (paras 23-25).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance. The Court found no unreasonable conduct by trial counsel, no prejudice from the alleged errors, and no evidence that additional witnesses or motions would have altered the outcome (paras 26-33).