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, a minister, was convicted for two counts of attempted criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) under his spiritual guidance. The incidents involved the Defendant attempting to engage in inappropriate physical contact with the Victim, a seventeen-year-old member of his congregation, on two separate occasions. The first incident occurred at the Victim's home, where the Defendant initiated unwanted physical contact. The second incident occurred at the Defendant's home and later at the church, where similar unwanted advances were made. The Defendant's actions were predicated on his position of authority as the Victim's minister (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Luna County, Daniel Viramontes, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• • Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, specifically contending that he did not use his position of authority to attempt CSCM. He acknowledged attempts to touch the Victim's intimate parts but argued that he did not leverage his ministerial authority in these attempts (paras 6, 8-9).
• • Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for two counts of attempted CSCM, particularly regarding the use of his position of authority to coerce the Victim (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for two counts of attempted CSCM (para 18).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with concurrence from Linda M. Vanzi and J. Miles Hanisee, the Court found substantial evidence supporting the verdicts. The Court highlighted that the Defendant's role as the Victim's minister facilitated his attempted sexual abuse by gaining the trust of the Victim and her family, causing the Victim to fear and question her perceptions of the Defendant's actions, and creating opportunities for the Defendant to be alone with the Victim. The Court reasoned that the Defendant's position of authority was integral to his attempts to coerce the Victim, despite his argument that he did not explicitly "play the authority card." The Court emphasized that coercion can be subtle and does not require overt assertion of authority. The Court disagreed with the Defendant's assertion that the Victim's ability to thwart his advances negated the use of his position of authority, stating that the intent to exercise undue influence was key, not the success of such attempts. The Court also referenced State v. Segura to clarify the distinction between completed and attempted CSCM in the context of authority, underscoring that the jury was correctly instructed on the law regarding attempts to commit CSCM by a person in a position of authority (paras 7-17).