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 Defendant, Fermin Moreno-Ortiz, who was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP) following an incident at a party. The Victim attended the party at a house shared by the Defendant and his friends, where everyone was consuming alcohol. The Victim, who had no interest in dating the Defendant, ended up in the Defendant's bedroom after "blacking out" and found herself being sexually penetrated by the Defendant without her consent, while another individual, Carlos Nagdi, was also present and involved in the sexual activity. The Victim had consented to sexual activity with Nagdi but not with the Defendant. The incident was reported to the police the following morning (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, specifically questioning whether the Victim was unconscious, asleep, or physically helpless at the time of the incident, and if so, whether he knew or should have known of her condition. The Defendant also contended that the admission of a statement made by Nagdi, describing the Defendant as "savage and tries to hook up with all the girls," was inadmissible character evidence and required reversal of the conviction (paras 7-8, 16).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, arguing that the Victim's use of the terms "blacked out" and "came to" indicated she was unconscious or physically helpless at the time of the incident, and that it was reasonable for the jury to infer the Defendant knew or should have known of the Victim's condition. The State also argued that even if the statement by Nagdi was inadmissible character evidence, its admission did not constitute plain error requiring reversal (paras 9, 16, 20-22).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for third-degree criminal sexual penetration.
• Whether the admission of a statement made by a witness, describing the Defendant's character in a negative light, constituted inadmissible character evidence requiring reversal of the conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for third-degree criminal sexual penetration (para 26).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Yohalem, with Chief Judge Hanisee and Judge Baca concurring, found that:
  The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The Court reasoned that the Victim's testimony, along with expert testimony regarding her level of intoxication and the effects of alcohol and medication, supported the jury's finding that the Victim was unconscious, asleep, or physically helpless at the time of the incident, and that the Defendant knew or had reason to know of her condition (paras 8-15).
  The statement made by Nagdi, describing the Defendant as "savage and tries to hook up with all the girls," was inadmissible character evidence under Rule 11-404(A)(1) NMRA. However, the Defendant's failure to object to its admission at trial meant the Court reviewed for plain error. The Court concluded that while the statement was inadmissible, its admission did not amount to plain error affecting the substantial rights of the Defendant or creating grave doubts concerning the validity of the verdict or the fairness of the trial. The primary issues for the jury were the Victim's level of impairment and the Defendant's awareness of her inability to consent, not the Defendant's general propensity for seeking sexual encounters (paras 16-25).