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 third-degree criminal sexual penetration. The case involved the Defendant's statements to the police, which were scrutinized for their admissibility and implications of guilt. Additionally, the conviction was supported by the victim's testimony and DNA evidence linking the Defendant to the crime.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the admission of his out-of-court statements to the police was improper, contending that the statements were not hearsay only if offered for a purpose other than the truth of the matter. He also challenged the inconsistency between his two statements and the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly questioning the reliability of witness memories impaired by alcohol and the conclusiveness of the DNA evidence.
• Appellee: Supported the admissibility of the Defendant's statements as non-hearsay, arguing they were either admissions of a party opponent or indicative of a consciousness of guilt due to their inconsistency. Additionally, contended that the evidence, including the victim's testimony and DNA findings, was sufficient to support the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's out-of-court statements to the police were admissible as non-hearsay.
• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction of third-degree criminal sexual penetration.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for third-degree criminal sexual penetration.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J., with James J. Wechsler, J., and Roderick T. Kennedy, J., concurring:
  The court found the Defendant's statements to the police admissible under Rule 11-801(D)(2)(a) NMRA, as they were considered non-hearsay statements of a party opponent. The court distinguished between the purposes for which the statements were offered, emphasizing their role in demonstrating a change in the Defendant's story, which suggested a consciousness of guilt.
  The court disagreed with the Defendant's argument that his initial denial and subsequent claim of not remembering were not sufficiently inconsistent to suggest guilt. It held that these inconsistencies were indicative of a consciousness of guilt.
  On the issue of evidence sufficiency, the court highlighted the victim's testimony and the DNA evidence linking the Defendant to the crime. It rejected the Defendant's challenges to the credibility of the evidence based on witness impairment by alcohol and the potential for non-sexual transfer of DNA, affirming the jury's role in weighing evidence and determining witness credibility. The court concluded that the evidence was substantial enough to support the conviction, adhering to the standard of reviewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict without reweighing it or substituting its judgment for that of the fact finder.