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 possession and distribution of child sexual exploitation materials. The images in question involved a 17-year-old subject and were alleged to depict prohibited sexual acts. The Defendant argued that the images did not meet the legal threshold for obscenity and that the convictions violated double jeopardy protections (paras 1, 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lincoln County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession and distribution of child sexual exploitation materials.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the images did not depict obscene visual media as required by law and that the convictions violated double jeopardy protections because they arose from the same images and conduct (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the images met the statutory criteria for obscenity and that the convictions were based on separate incidents of possession and distribution, thus not violating double jeopardy (paras 6-9, 15-19).
Legal Issues
- Whether the images in question met the statutory criteria for obscene visual media depicting prohibited sexual acts (para 1).
- Whether the convictions for possession and distribution of the same images violated double jeopardy protections (para 1).
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions (para 20).
Reasons
Per Wray J. (Attrep and Baca JJ. concurring): The Court found that the evidence supported the jury's finding that the images depicted a prohibited sexual act and were obscene under the statutory definition. The Court applied the Dost factors to determine lewdness and found that the images met the criteria for a prohibited sexual act. The Court also concluded that the possession and distribution charges were not unitary conduct because they involved separate images and incidents occurring on different dates, thus not violating double jeopardy protections (paras 3-19).