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 sexual offenses against his ex-wife's granddaughter, who was seven and nine years old at the time of the incidents. The assaults occurred during two periods: September 9-24, 2017, and August 12-November 29, 2019. During these incidents, the Defendant entered the victim's room and touched her breasts, buttocks, and vulva, with digital penetration occurring in the first incident (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that two of his convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) violate double jeopardy protections, as each assault should be considered a single course of conduct, allowing only one CSCM conviction per incident (para 5).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that each count of a criminal sexual act involving a separate body part constitutes distinct acts, justifying multiple convictions (para 15).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's multiple convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor violate double jeopardy protections by constituting a single course of conduct (para 5).
Disposition
- The Court reversed in part and remanded for resentencing, directing the district court to vacate one count of CSCM from each assaultive period (para 20).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Henderson and Yohalem JJ. concurring): The Court found that the Defendant's conduct during each assault was insufficiently distinct to support multiple convictions of CSCM. The analysis focused on the temporal proximity, location, and lack of intervening events during the assaults. The Court applied the rule of lenity, presuming the Legislature did not intend to permit multiple punishments for the same offense. The Court concluded that touching different body parts alone was insufficient to support multiple convictions without additional evidence of distinct conduct (paras 9-19).