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, a 29-year-old man, engaged in sexual intercourse with an 11- or 12-year-old girl, A.S., whom he had met through her mother. The incidents occurred after the Defendant developed a relationship with A.S.'s family and began communicating with her via cell phone. On January 7, 2005, the Defendant drove A.S. to a remote location, where he used physical force to engage in sexual intercourse with her despite her objections. A second incident occurred on January 28, 2005, when the Defendant picked A.S. up from her bus stop and drove her around before engaging in further sexual acts (paras 2-3, 7, 16).
Procedural History
- District Court of Sandoval County: The Defendant was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP III) and child enticement.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence did not support a conviction for CSP III, as there was insufficient proof of physical force or coercion. He contended that the evidence only supported a conviction for CSP IV, which is based on the victim's age. Additionally, he challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding the "possession" element of the child enticement charge (paras 1, 6, 10, 14).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for CSP III and child enticement. The State argued that the Defendant used physical force to engage in sexual intercourse with A.S. and had possession of her in his vehicle with the intent to commit a crime (paras 6, 12, 17).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for third-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP III) based on the use of physical force or coercion?
- Did the evidence establish the "possession" element required for the child enticement conviction?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions for third-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP III) and child enticement (para 18).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Pickard and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
CSP III Conviction: The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the Defendant used physical force or coercion to engage in sexual intercourse with A.S. The evidence showed that the Defendant isolated A.S., physically restrained her, and ignored her objections, which constituted the use of force. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that A.S.'s willingness to engage in communication or subsequent contact negated the use of force. The jury was properly instructed on both CSP III and CSP IV, and its verdict was supported by the evidence (paras 7-13).
Child Enticement Conviction: The Court found that the Defendant had "possession" of A.S. in his vehicle, as he exercised actual physical control over her movements and decisions. The evidence demonstrated that the Defendant's actions, including driving A.S. to various locations and isolating her, satisfied the possession element of the child enticement statute. The Court emphasized that possession does not require physical force or abduction but rather control over the victim (paras 14-17).
The Court concluded that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support both convictions (para 18).