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 the fall of 2007, the Defendant and her boyfriend supplied methamphetamine to the Defendant's thirteen-year-old daughter, J.S. During this period, on two occasions, the Defendant requested J.S. to perform fellatio on her boyfriend, which J.S. did without being forced. The incidents occurred while they were all under the influence of methamphetamine. The exact dates of these incidents were uncertain, but they were initially believed to have occurred between Halloween and Thanksgiving of 2007.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Contended that her convictions for criminal sexual penetration (CSP) II (felony) should be reversed due to the State's failure to establish or charge the essential element of unlawfulness. Additionally, argued that the district court erred in allowing the State to amend the information after the defense was presented, which addressed the impossibility of the allegations within the initially charged timeframe.
• Appellee (State): Argued that the amendment of the criminal information to extend the timeframe of the alleged crimes was permissible under Rule 5-204(C) NMRA and that the Defendant was not prejudiced by this amendment. The State maintained that the jury instructions properly required the jury to find that the Defendant caused her daughter to engage in the sex acts during the underlying felony of distributing a controlled substance to a minor.

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury was properly instructed on the essential elements of two counts of CSP II (felony).
• Whether the district court erred in allowing the State to amend the criminal information dates to conform to the Victim’s trial testimony after the Defendant had presented an alibi defense relating to the date charged in the original criminal information.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for CSP II (felony) and the district court's judgment.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that the jury instructions properly required the jury to find that the Defendant caused her daughter to engage in the sex acts during the commission of distributing a controlled substance to a minor, which satisfied the element of unlawfulness. The Court also found no prejudice against the Defendant due to the amendment of the criminal information dates to conform to the victim's trial testimony, noting that the defense had the opportunity to cross-examine the victim about the inconsistencies in her testimony regarding the dates of the incidents. The Court distinguished this case from others by emphasizing that the Defendant's entire defense was not solely based on an alibi but also attempted to discredit the victim's testimony. The Court concluded that the Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the amendment of the charging dates after the defense had presented its case.