This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Two minor girls, aged nine and ten, went to the Defendant's apartment seeking work. The Defendant hired them to clean and, during their work, exposed himself, blocked their exit, and displayed a condom while making inappropriate comments. The Defendant did not physically touch the minors or attempt to make them touch him (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: The Defendant was convicted on two counts each of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM) and false imprisonment.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the uniform jury instruction for CDM was inadequate, the evidence was insufficient to support the CDM convictions, the trial court erred in denying his requested instructions on indecent exposure, and the admission of his preliminary hearing testimony was improper (paras 1, 3, 9, 11, 18).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the jury instruction accurately reflected the statutory elements of CDM, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the indecent exposure instructions were properly denied, and the preliminary hearing testimony was admissible (paras 4-6, 10, 13-16, 18).
Legal Issues
- Whether the uniform jury instruction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM) was adequate (para 3).
- Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's CDM convictions (para 9).
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's requested instructions on indecent exposure (para 11).
- Whether the trial court erred in admitting the Defendant's preliminary hearing testimony (para 18).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions on all counts (para 19).
Reasons
Per Black J. (Donnelly and Bivins JJ. concurring):
Adequacy of Jury Instruction: The Court held that the uniform jury instruction for CDM was consistent with the statutory language and purpose. It provided the jury with appropriate standards to evaluate the Defendant's conduct. The Court rejected the argument that the instruction improperly broadened the scope of the statute (paras 4-8).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found that the Defendant's actions—exposing himself, blocking the minors' exit, and displaying a condom while making inappropriate comments—constituted sufficient evidence to support the CDM convictions. The statute does not require proof that the minors actually became delinquent, only that the Defendant's actions tended to cause or encourage delinquency (paras 9-10).
Indecent Exposure Instructions: The Court upheld the trial court's refusal to provide "step down" instructions on indecent exposure. It reasoned that the Defendant's actions occurred inside his apartment and did not meet the statutory requirement of exposure to "public view." The Court also noted that the Defendant failed to present evidence that his actions were visible to the general public (paras 11-17).
Preliminary Hearing Testimony: The Court declined to consider the Defendant's argument regarding the admission of his preliminary hearing testimony because the transcript of the testimony was not included in the appellate record (para 18).