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 living with his family in Hobbs, New Mexico, when his sister discovered a hook with a hidden camera in the bathroom, positioned to record in front of the toilet. The camera, which belonged to the Defendant, contained two short, grainy video files showing movement. The Defendant admitted to purchasing the camera, placing it in the bathroom, and being curious about capturing video, stating he was "just playing around" after getting the idea from a pornography website. The camera was motion-activated and designed to be hidden (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted manufacture of child pornography. He contended there was insufficient evidence of the requisite mens rea, a substantial step towards the crime, and that any images produced would depict a prohibited sexual act or be obscene (paras 8-9).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not explicitly detail the Plaintiff-Appellee's arguments but implies a defense of the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial to meet the State's burden of proof for the conviction (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for attempted manufacture of child pornography, including the necessary mens rea, a substantial step towards the crime, and the potential for produced images to depict a prohibited sexual act or be obscene (paras 8-9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for attempted manufacture of child pornography (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Kristina Bogardus, with Judges Julie J. Vargas and Zachary A. Ives concurring, held that substantial evidence supported the Defendant's conviction. The Court reasoned that the Defendant's purchase, activation, and strategic placement of the camera, combined with his admissions, indicated an intent to produce videos that could be considered obscene and depict a prohibited sexual act. The Court distinguished between preparation and attempt, finding that the Defendant's actions constituted a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. The quality of the videos did not affect the determination that the Defendant had attempted to manufacture child pornography. The Court applied a standard of review that considers whether a reasonable mind might accept the evidence as adequate to support the conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict (paras 10-19).