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 one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor. During the trial, it was reported that a juror had difficulty hearing the defense counsel, which led to the defense counsel being provided with a different mask and instructed to speak more clearly. The Defendant argued that this issue violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict and his right to effective counsel (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that a juror's inability to hear violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict and deprived him of effective cross-examination, thus constructively depriving him of his right to counsel. He claimed these errors were structural and warranted automatic reversal (para 5).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether a juror's difficulty in hearing the defense counsel violated the Defendant's right to a unanimous jury verdict.
- Whether the alleged hearing issue constructively deprived the Defendant of his right to effective counsel.
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed, and the Defendant's conviction was affirmed (para 12).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Medina C.J. and Wray J. concurring): The court found that the Defendant's arguments were unpreserved, as no objections were made during the trial, and the jury was not polled after the verdict. The lack of preservation denied the district court the opportunity to address the alleged error and resulted in an insufficient record to support the Defendant's claims. The court declined to address the unpreserved issues, noting that the Defendant could pursue a habeas corpus petition. The court also found no fundamental error, as there was no record evidence that any juror failed to hear material portions of the trial, and thus no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated (paras 6-11).