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, an assistant principal in Hobbs, New Mexico, was accused of inappropriately touching five female students' breasts and one student's buttocks during interactions such as hugs or while the students were performing tasks. The incidents occurred between 1997 and 1999. Following an investigation, the Defendant was charged with six counts of third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). A jury convicted him of four counts and acquitted him of two (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County, Don Maddox, District Judge: The Defendant was convicted of four counts of third-degree CSCM and sentenced to three years for each count, to run concurrently, followed by two years of parole (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial due to alleged juror bias, improperly instructed the jury on the elements of CSCM, and allowed insufficient evidence to support the convictions. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that the sentencing process violated his due process rights (paras 1, 3, 18, 31, 39).
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that there was no evidence of juror bias affecting the trial, the jury instructions were proper, substantial evidence supported the convictions, and the sentencing process complied with due process requirements (paras 3, 18, 31, 39).
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motions for a mistrial based on alleged juror bias.
- Whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the elements of CSCM.
- Whether substantial evidence supported the Defendant's convictions.
- Whether the sentencing process violated the Defendant's due process rights.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions and sentence (para 44).
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry J. (Alarid and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
Juror Bias and Denial of Mistrial: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motions for a mistrial. The court conducted an inquiry into the alleged biased comments by Juror 18, excused her from service, and found no evidence that her comments prejudiced the remaining jurors. The Defendant declined further voir dire of the jury, and there was no indication of actual bias among the jurors who deliberated (paras 3-13).
Jury Instructions: The trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements of CSCM, including coercion and unlawfulness, in accordance with statutory requirements and case law. The instructions were not confusing, and the time frames used in the charges did not violate the Defendant's due process rights. The court also found no evidence of a non-unanimous verdict (paras 18-30).
Substantial Evidence: The testimony of the victims provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the Defendant used his position of authority to coerce the victims into submitting to unlawful contact. The court rejected the Defendant's argument that coercion required "affirmative forceful acts" (paras 31-38).
Sentencing Process: The trial court did not violate the Defendant's due process rights during sentencing. Although the State presented testimony from witnesses alleging prior uncharged misconduct, the trial court imposed the basic sentence for a third-degree felony and did not rely on the testimony to enhance the sentence. The Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the sentencing procedure (paras 39-43).