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 convicted of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM). These convictions stemmed from incidents where the Defendant, living with the victim's grandmother, inappropriately touched the victim on multiple occasions and exposed himself, asking the victim to touch him. The incidents occurred while the victim was watching television at her grandmother's house and during a car ride to a gas station.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by allowing hearsay testimony from a nurse about the victim's statements, improperly commented on the Defendant's right to silence, violated double jeopardy protections with the CSCM convictions, and erred in sentencing by considering uncharged allegations and refusing to run sentences concurrently.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Defended the district court's decisions on the admissibility of hearsay testimony, argued that the Defendant opened the door to comments on his refusal to take a polygraph, and supported the district court's decisions on double jeopardy and sentencing issues.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by allowing hearsay testimony regarding the victim's statements.
• Whether the State's comments on the Defendant's right to silence were impermissible.
• Whether the convictions for CSCM violated double jeopardy protections.
• Whether the conviction for CDM and convictions for CSCM violated double jeopardy protections.
• Whether the district court erred by introducing evidence of prior, uncharged allegations against the Defendant during sentencing.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of sentence and refusing to run his sentences concurrent.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all counts.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge concurring):
  Hearsay Testimony: The court found that the nurse's testimony about the victim's statements was admissible under Rule 11-803(D) NMRA because it was pertinent to diagnosis and treatment. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Mendez, which allows for the admissibility of such statements when they are pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment.
  Comment on Right to Silence: The court ruled that the State's comments were permissible under the invited-response doctrine because the Defendant had opened the door to this line of questioning by mentioning a polygraph test first.
  Double Jeopardy: The court applied a two-part test to determine that the convictions for CSCM and CDM did not violate double jeopardy protections because each charge required proof of an element that the other did not. It also found that the acts leading to the CSCM convictions were not unitary, as they were separated by time, location, and intervening events, thus not violating double jeopardy.
  Sentencing Issues: The court held that the rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing, allowing the district court to consider evidence of prior, uncharged allegations. Additionally, the court declined to consider the Defendant's argument regarding the reconsideration of his sentence to run concurrently due to a lack of cited authority.