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 eighteen counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor under thirteen years old, based on allegations of sexual abuse of his stepdaughter over a four-year period, beginning when the child was four years old. The abuse included acts of fellatio and anal intercourse, which were described as occurring multiple times each year during the specified periods.
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County, presided by Judge Albert S. “Pat” Murdoch: The Defendant was convicted of eighteen counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor under thirteen years old following a jury trial.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) nine of the charges were "carbon-copy" counts that violated due process and double jeopardy rights due to lack of factual differentiation; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support several counts; (3) the district court erred in three evidentiary rulings, including the admission of certain testimony and the exclusion of evidence; and (4) several counts should have been dismissed for improper venue.
- State-Appellee: Conceded that there was insufficient evidence for one count (Count 5) but argued that the remaining convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or venue determinations.
Legal Issues
- Did the inclusion of nine "carbon-copy" counts violate the Defendant's due process and double jeopardy rights?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the convictions for Counts 1, 3, 7, and 9?
- Did the district court err in its evidentiary rulings, including the admission of certain testimony and the exclusion of evidence?
- Was venue proper for the remaining counts in Bernalillo County?
Disposition
- The Court reversed the Defendant's convictions for Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 due to due process and evidentiary issues.
- The Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions for Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17.
- The case was remanded to the district court for re-sentencing consistent with the opinion.
Reasons
Per Garcia J. (Wechsler and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Due Process and Double Jeopardy: The Court found that nine of the counts were "carbon-copy" charges that lacked factual differentiation, violating the Defendant's due process and double jeopardy rights. The testimony and evidence presented by the State failed to tie each count to a specific, distinguishable event, and the jury instructions for these counts were identical. As a result, the Court reversed one of each indistinguishable pair of counts (Counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court determined that the testimony of the child victim, which described repeated acts of abuse during the specified periods, was sufficient to support the convictions for Counts 1, 3, 7, and 9. The Court noted that corroboration of the victim's testimony is not required under New Mexico law.
Evidentiary Rulings:
- The Court held that the admission of the school counselor's testimony regarding delayed disclosure of abuse, even if erroneous, was harmless given the substantial evidence supporting the convictions.
- The Defendant's objection to hearsay testimony about physical abuse of the child's mother was not preserved for appellate review.
- The exclusion of evidence regarding the child's knowledge of her mother's past abuse was upheld, as the Defendant failed to establish its relevance.
Venue: The Court found that the Defendant waived his right to challenge venue by failing to raise the issue within the required timeframe. The Court also noted that public policy supported trying all related counts together in Bernalillo County.
The Court concluded by affirming the remaining convictions and remanding the case for re-sentencing.