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

• In December 2009, during a family sleepover, Defendant Oscar Arvizo, the uncle of the victim A.B., engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with her on two occasions. The first incident involved Arvizo touching A.B.'s buttock in a hallway, and the second incident involved him touching the outer lip of her genital area while she was sleeping. A.B. resisted both advances and later disclosed the abuse to her father, leading to Arvizo's criminal charges (paras 3-9).

Procedural History

• State v. Arvizo, No. 33,697, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. June 28, 2016): The Court of Appeals reversed Arvizo's convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), holding that the evidence failed to prove coercion because A.B. resisted immediately after each incident (para 1).
• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision on the issue of coercion in the context of CSCM by a person in a position of authority (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that a child's physical resistance after the fact negates other evidence of coercion by a person in a position of authority in a conviction for CSCM (para 2).
• Defendant-Respondent (Oscar Arvizo): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously held that a child’s physical resistance after the fact negates other evidence for the element of coercion by a person in a position of authority in a conviction for CSCM (para 2).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated Defendant’s convictions for second- and third-degree CSCM. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to decide any remaining unaddressed appellate issues raised by Defendant (para 25).

Reasons

• Per Petra Jimenez Maes, Justice, with concurrence from Judith K. Nakamura, Chief Justice, Edward L. Chávez, Justice, Charles W. Daniels, Justice, and Barbara J. Vigil, Justice:
  The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of coercion within the context of CSCM by a person in a position of authority. The Court clarified that coercion does not require an affirmative forceful act or a warning that the sexual contact is about to happen. It held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a jury to find that Defendant exercised undue influence over A.B. such that she submitted to sexual contact on both occasions. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on the perpetrator’s actions, not the victim’s resistance, and that a child can be coerced through subtle social or domestic pressure. The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that Defendant coerced A.B. and this was not negated because she pushed Defendant’s hand away after each sexual contact (paras 13-24).