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

The Defendant was convicted of multiple sex crimes against a child who was five years old at the time of the offenses. The crimes included four counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor, four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The child was nearly nine years old when she testified at the Defendant's trial (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County: Convicted the Defendant of multiple sex crimes against a minor.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in admitting a videotape of the child's safehouse interview as a recorded recollection and claimed plain error in not excluding portions of the interview as more prejudicial than probative. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for certain convictions and claimed a violation of double jeopardy rights (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting the child's safehouse interview as a recorded recollection under Rule 11-803(5) NMRA.
• Whether the district court committed plain error by not excluding portions of the safehouse interview under Rule 11-403 NMRA and Rule 11-404(B) NMRA.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for conduct prior to July 1, 2019.
• Whether the Defendant's conviction of a third count of criminal sexual penetration of a minor during the time period from July 1, 2019, to January 22, 2020, violates double jeopardy rights.

Disposition

• The court vacated the Defendant's convictions for Counts 3, 5, and 7 due to insufficient evidence.
• The court affirmed the convictions on the remaining counts (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9).
• The case was remanded for resentencing (para 1).

Reasons

Per Yohalem J. (Hanisee and Wray JJ. concurring):

• The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the safehouse interview as a recorded recollection. The State laid a sufficient foundation under Rule 11-803(5) by establishing that the child once knew about the matter but could not recall it well enough to testify fully and accurately at trial (paras 6-15).
• The court rejected the Defendant's argument that the State was required to attempt to refresh the child's memory under Rule 11-612 before admitting the safehouse interview as a recorded recollection (paras 16-19).
• The court found no plain error in the district court's admission of the child's detailed descriptions of the Defendant's conduct, as the evidence was not more prejudicial than probative and was necessary to meet the standard for convicting a defendant of repeated sexual molestation of a child (paras 21-28).
• The court determined that there was no evidence in the record to support the Defendant's convictions for conduct prior to July 1, 2019, and therefore vacated those convictions (paras 30-40).
• The court concluded that the Defendant's conviction of Count 4 did not violate double jeopardy rights, as there was sufficient evidence of a third distinct incident of cunnilingus during the relevant time period (paras 41-47).