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 multiple counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM), and bribery or intimidation of a witness. The incidents involved a minor, Nicole, who was between 13 and 18 years old during the relevant period. The Defendant, a trusted family friend, used his position of authority to coerce Nicole into sexual acts during trips to the dump and other occasions. Nicole testified that the abuse occurred regularly over several years, starting in 2001 (paras 1-2, 7-9).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County, December 12, 2006: The Defendant was indicted on 76 counts, with 49 counts proceeding to trial. The jury convicted the Defendant on all counts (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for certain CSCM counts (counts 2-7) due to lack of specificity regarding the timing of the incidents and inconsistencies in Nicole’s testimony. Additionally, the Defendant contended that he was not in a position of authority over Nicole for certain counts (paras 1, 3, 13, 18).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, including Nicole’s consistent testimony about the frequency of abuse and the Defendant’s position of authority as a trusted family friend and father figure (paras 4-6, 20-24).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for counts 2-7 of CSCM?
- Did the Defendant occupy a position of authority over the victim, as required for the CSCM and CSPM convictions?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant’s convictions on all counts (para 29).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
Sufficiency of Evidence for CSCM Counts 2-7:
The Court found that Nicole’s testimony, corroborated by her mother, provided substantial evidence that the Defendant committed acts of CSCM every two to three weeks during the relevant period. The jury was entitled to resolve any inconsistencies in Nicole’s testimony and assess her credibility. The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the State’s method of charging was speculative, as Nicole’s testimony supported the monthly charges (paras 6-17).
Position of Authority:
The Court held that the Defendant occupied a position of authority over Nicole due to his role as a trusted family friend, father figure, and employer. Nicole’s mother entrusted the Defendant with Nicole’s care, and Nicole viewed him as a father figure. The Defendant used this position to coerce Nicole into submitting to sexual contact, including through threats that harm would come to her family if she disclosed the abuse. The evidence supported the jury’s finding that the Defendant used his position of authority to commit the offenses (paras 18-28).
Credibility and Coercion:
The Court emphasized that the jury was entitled to infer coercion from the Defendant’s threats and Nicole’s continued acquiescence to the abuse over several years. The Defendant’s position of authority and the circumstances of the abuse created an environment where Nicole felt powerless to resist or report the misconduct (paras 26-28).