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 23-year-old, and his friend met a 15-year-old victim and her friend in Santa Fe, New Mexico. They offered the girls alcohol and later arranged to meet again. The Defendant and his friend picked up the victim, provided her with alcohol and marijuana, and took her to the Defendant's apartment. The victim, intoxicated, was sexually assaulted by the Defendant while she was in and out of consciousness (paras 2-12).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The Defendant was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM) and criminal sexual penetration in the commission of a felony (CSP II-felony).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions violated double jeopardy, challenged the sufficiency of evidence for both convictions, and contended that CDM is not an appropriate predicate felony for CSP II-felony or that force or coercion should be included in the jury instructions (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the legislative intent allowed for multiple punishments for the offenses charged (paras 14, 27).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was violated by convictions for both CDM and CSP II-felony.
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for CDM and CSP II-felony?
- Is CDM an appropriate predicate felony for CSP II-felony, or should force or coercion be included in the jury instructions as an essential element?
Disposition
- The conviction for CDM was vacated due to a double jeopardy violation.
- The conviction for CSP II-felony was affirmed (para 46).
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Attrep C.J. and Baca J. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant's convictions for both CDM and CSP II-felony were based on unitary conduct, violating the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy. The Court applied the modified Blockburger test and concluded that CDM was subsumed within CSP II-felony under the State's theory of the case, as the same conduct was used to establish both offenses (paras 33-39). The Court rejected the State's argument to apply a different analysis based on racketeering and continuing criminal enterprise cases, finding them inapplicable to the CSP II-felony context (paras 40-43). The Court also held that CDM is an appropriate predicate felony for CSP II-felony and that the statute does not require proof of force or coercion when CDM is the predicate felony (paras 44-45).