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 convicted of multiple counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor. The incidents involved the Defendant, who was known to the Victim through their church, unlawfully and intentionally touching the Victim's breasts on numerous occasions over a period of time. The Victim was between the ages of 12 and 13 during the incidents, which occurred in 1998 and 1999. The Victim reported the abuse to her school counselor in October 1999.
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of three counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree and one count in the fourth degree.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred in denying a motion for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the change of venue motion.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor?
- Did the trial court err in denying the Defendant’s motion for a change of venue due to pretrial publicity?
- Did the trial court err in denying the Defendant’s request for individual voir dire of jurors regarding pretrial and mid-trial publicity?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.
Reasons
Per Roderick T. Kennedy J. (Celia Foy Castillo and Timothy L. Garcia JJ. concurring):
Sufficiency of Evidence:
The Court held that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant’s convictions. The Victim’s testimony provided substantial evidence of the unlawful touching, including specific details about the incidents and the timeline. The Court emphasized that it is the jury’s role to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh conflicting evidence. The jury was entitled to believe the Victim’s testimony despite the lack of corroborating witnesses and her delayed reporting of the abuse.
Change of Venue:
The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion for a change of venue. The Defendant failed to demonstrate either presumed or actual prejudice due to pretrial publicity. The Court noted that the publicity occurred nine months before the trial, was not extensive, and did not saturate the community. During voir dire, no jurors indicated exposure to the publicity, and the trial court took adequate steps to ensure impartiality.
Individual Voir Dire:
The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that individual voir dire was necessary to uncover potential bias from pretrial and mid-trial publicity. The trial court’s collective questioning of jurors during voir dire was deemed sufficient, as no jurors reported exposure to prejudicial media coverage. The Court also presumed the correctness of the trial court’s handling of mid-trial publicity, as the Defendant failed to provide evidence of its prejudicial content.
In conclusion, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions on all grounds, upholding the Defendant’s convictions.