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, the leader of a religious group, was convicted for criminal sexual contact with a minor (CSCM) and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM), based on incidents involving unclothed experiences with two teenage girls from his community. The Defendant claimed these interactions were spiritual healings (paras 2, 4).

Procedural History

• Previous opinion: Convictions reversed due to issues with the grand jury indictment.
• New Mexico Supreme Court: Reversed the previous opinion and instructed the Court of Appeals to consider the Defendant's remaining arguments on remand.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the district court wrongly excluded evidence and witnesses, the prosecution exceeded the scope of direct examination during cross-examination, proposed jury instructions were erroneously denied, there was insufficient evidence for conviction, counsel was ineffective for not raising a defense under New Mexico’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial (paras 3, 5-7, 9-10, 14, 17-18, 21, 28).
• State: Contended that the district court properly excluded cumulative evidence, the prosecution's cross-examination was within scope, and the Defendant's remaining arguments, including those related to jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and RFRA, lacked merit (paras 5-7, 9-10, 14, 17-18, 21, 28).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding certain evidence and witnesses.
• Whether the prosecution exceeded the scope of direct examination during cross-examination.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's proposed jury instructions.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of the crimes charged.
• Whether the Defendant's counsel was ineffective for not raising a defense under RFRA.
• Whether cumulative error deprived the Defendant of a fair trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions on all counts.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court's decisions regarding the exclusion of evidence and witnesses, the scope of cross-examination, the denial of proposed jury instructions, and the sufficiency of evidence. The Court also concluded that the Defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a defense under RFRA, as such a defense would not have changed the outcome of the trial. Lastly, the Court determined there was no cumulative error affecting the fairness of the trial. The Court held that the statutes under which the Defendant was convicted were of general applicability, did not discriminate against or among religions, furthered a compelling governmental interest, and were the least restrictive means of doing so (paras 5-7, 9-10, 14, 17-18, 21, 28, 33-35).