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 charged with ten counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor under the age of thirteen, allegedly committed over a ten-week period. The indictment described identical counts without distinguishing between specific incidents, and the victim could not recall distinct events beyond a general pattern of abuse (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Dismissed five of the ten counts in the indictment, finding that the undifferentiated charges violated the Defendant's due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice or protection against double jeopardy (paras 1, 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State): Argued that the indictment, combined with the bill of particulars, provided sufficient notice of the charges and adequately protected the Defendant from double jeopardy. The State contended that the ten-week charging period was reasonable and that the trial court erred in dismissing five counts (para 6).
• Appellee (Defendant): Asserted that the indictment violated due process by failing to distinguish between specific incidents, thereby hindering the ability to prepare a defense and exposing the Defendant to double jeopardy. The Defendant also argued that the lack of specificity risked a non-unanimous jury verdict (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether an indictment with multiple, factually indistinguishable counts violates a defendant's due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of the charges and protection against double jeopardy.
• Whether the trial court erred in dismissing five counts of the indictment based on the lack of specificity in the charges.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of five counts of the indictment (para 14).

Reasons

Per A. Joseph Alarid J. (Sutin C.J. and Fry J. concurring):

• The Court held that the indictment violated the Defendant's due process rights because it failed to provide adequate notice of the charges and did not protect against double jeopardy. The lack of distinguishing facts among the counts made it impossible for the Defendant to prepare a defense or for the jury to render a unanimous verdict on specific incidents (paras 1, 6-10).
• The Court relied on precedent, including Valentine v. Konteh, which established that undifferentiated charges in an indictment violate due process when they fail to anchor counts to specific incidents (paras 7-9).
• The Court emphasized that while some leeway is allowed in cases involving child victims who cannot recall specific dates, the State must still provide sufficient facts to identify distinct incidents or charge a single count for a course of conduct (paras 10-11).
• The Court rejected the State's argument that the trial court's mistaken belief about the charging period's length warranted reversal, noting that the dismissal was based on the lack of specificity, not the time frame (para 12).
• The Court also declined to reverse based on the State's submission of a bill of particulars that included events outside the ten-week period, as any error was invited by the State itself (para 13).