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 case involves the State's appeal against the pretrial dismissal of three counts of criminal sexual penetration (CSP) charged against the Defendant under two theories: CSP in the second degree (CSP II) and CSP in the fourth degree (CSP IV). The charges were based on allegations involving a fourteen-year-old victim, with the Defendant being forty-six years old. The Defendant argued that the sexual intercourse was consensual, challenging the State's omission of "without consent" language in the grand jury instructions on the unlawfulness element of CSP II and CSP IV (paras 1, 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Pretrial dismissal of three counts of CSP against the Defendant (para 1).
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico: Appeal filed by the State challenging the dismissal (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the consent of a statutorily defined child is legally irrelevant to the unlawfulness element for both CSP II and CSP IV, contending that the grand jury was properly instructed without the "without consent" language (paras 5, 7).
• Defendant: Contended that the State's omission of "without consent" language in the grand jury instructions was critical, as the evidence showed the sexual intercourse was consensual. Argued that this omission required dismissal of the charges (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by concluding that the State improperly instructed the grand jury on the definition of the unlawfulness element for CSP II and CSP IV by omitting language that the act must have been done "without consent" of the fourteen-year-old alleged victim (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order dismissing Counts I, V, and VI of the indictment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion (para 20).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the opinion and Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, held that the State properly instructed the grand jury regarding the definition of unlawfulness because the consent of a statutorily defined child is legally irrelevant to the unlawfulness element for both CSP II and CSP IV. The court reasoned that the law does not recognize the willingness of a child between the ages of thirteen and sixteen to consent to sexual intercourse as vitiating the act of CSP, making the victim's consent legally irrelevant under the CSP IV statute. Furthermore, the court concluded that the consent of a statutorily defined child is irrelevant to the unlawfulness element of CSP II as well, aligning with the reasoning that absence of consent is not an element of the crime of CSP. The court also addressed and dismissed the Defendant's reliance on the case of State v. Jensen and the district court's interpretation regarding the necessity of including "without consent" language in the grand jury instructions (paras 9-19).