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 twelve counts related to alleged criminal sexual contact and/or penetration of a sixteen-year-old boy, an employee at the Defendant's magic shop, occurring between November 2, 1996, and May 14, 1999. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the charges were filed after the statute of limitations had expired. The State contended that the statute of limitations had not expired because it was tolled when the Defendant left New Mexico in 2000 and did not return until 2014 (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the statute of limitations was tolled during Defendant's absence from New Mexico from April 2000 until July 2014 (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the charges were filed over ten years after the expiration of the six-year statute of limitations and that the district court's use of judicial notice from a parallel case was improper due to insufficient detail and inappropriate use of Defendant's own statements against him (paras 2-3, 6).
• State: Contended that the statute of limitations had not expired because it did not begin until the victim turned eighteen and was tolled when the Defendant left New Mexico. The State also argued that the district court properly took judicial notice of Defendant's sworn testimony from a parallel case to establish his absence from New Mexico, tolling the statute of limitations (paras 2, 6-9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of the statute of limitations.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support charges of criminal sexual contact (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss and upholding the conviction on four counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor (para 12).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge (Julie J. Vargas, Judge and Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge concurring): The Court held that the Defendant did not demonstrate that the district court erred in taking judicial notice of Defendant’s sworn testimony from another case, which was used to establish his absence from New Mexico and toll the statute of limitations. The Court also found that the Defendant's argument regarding the sufficiency of evidence was undeveloped and moot, as the charges in question were either dismissed or resulted in a not guilty verdict. The Court emphasized the presumption of correctness in the district court’s rulings and noted the Defendant's failure to provide an adequate analysis of the law or application of the facts for appellate review (paras 6-11).