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 former roommate and romantic partner of the Victim, was involved in an incident where he strangled the Victim until she was unconscious, moved her to a hallway, and sexually assaulted her. After the Victim regained consciousness, the Defendant struck her with a machete and sexually assaulted her again (para 2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: The Defendant was convicted of multiple charges, including criminal sexual penetration and aggravated battery against a household member.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions violated his right to be free from double jeopardy and that the district court erred by allowing the jury to view the Victim testify with a service dog (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that none of the Defendant's arguments established a double jeopardy violation and supported the district court's decision regarding the service dog (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant’s convictions for Counts 2, 3, and 4 violate double jeopardy protections.
- Whether the district court erred by allowing the jury to see the Victim testify while accompanied by a service dog.
Disposition
- The court found that the Defendant’s convictions for Counts 2, 3, and 4 violated double jeopardy protections and ordered the district court to vacate the convictions for Counts 3 and 4 and resentence the Defendant (para 28).
- The court affirmed the district court's decision regarding the service dog (para 28).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Henderson and Yohalem JJ. concurring):
The court determined that the Defendant’s conduct underlying Counts 2, 3, and 4 was unitary, as the same evidence supported all three charges. The State relied on the same acts of force to support the convictions, violating double jeopardy protections (paras 8-19). The court concluded that the legislative intent did not permit multiple punishments for the unitary conduct, leading to the vacating of Counts 3 and 4 (paras 12-20). Regarding the service dog, the court found that the Defendant failed to preserve his arguments about the Victim's need for the service dog and that no fundamental error occurred (paras 24-27).