July 14, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Larry Abeyta, No. A-1-CA-38310

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

11
12
13
14
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court’s discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision 1s updated accordingly in
Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Filed 7/14/2020 1:02 PM

Plaintiff-A ppellee, ee
Mark Reynoltis
V. NO. A-1-CA-38310
LARRY ABEYTA,

Defendant-A ppellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY
Daylene A. Marsh, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Luz C. Valverde, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
«3 Defendant appeals his conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor

(CSCM) (child under 13). We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant

has responded with a memorandum in opposition and motion to amend the docketing

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

statement. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the motion to amend and affirm
the judgment and sentence.

Issues in the Docketing Statement

(7 Defendant has abandoned the two issues raised in the docketing statement. See
State v. Salenas, 1991-NMCA-056, § 2, 112 N.M. 208, 814 P.2d 136 (stating that
where a party has not responded to the Court’s proposed disposition of an issue, that
issue is deemed abandoned).

Motion to Amend

3} Defendant has filed a motion to amend the docketing statement to add a new
issue. In cases assigned to the summary calendar, this Court will grant a motion to
amend the docketing statement to include additional issues if the motion (1) is timely,
(2) states all facts material to a consideration of the new issues sought to be raised, (3)
explains how the issues were properly preserved or why they may be raised for the
first time on appeal, (4) demonstrates just cause by explaining why the issues were not
originally raised in the docketing statement, and (5) complies in other respects with the
appellate rules. See State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081, § 15, 100 N.M. 193, 668 P.2d
309. This Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable, even
ifthey allege fundamental or jurisdictional error. See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073,
4 42, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91, overruled on other grounds by State v. Salgado,

1991-NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730.

2

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

[R Here, Defendant moves to amend the docketing statement to raise the issue of
whether it was fundamental error to fail to instruct the jury on the element of
lawfulness. [MIO 2] The unlawfulness ofthe contact is an essential element in CSCM
cases, and the omission of the element is generally considered to be fundamental error.
State v. Osborne, 1991-NMSC-032, 9§ 33, 34, 111 N.M. 654, 808 P.2d 624.
However, the Supreme Court provided an exception for cases where a defendant
claims that the alleged contact did not occur, thereby not placing lawfulness at issue.
State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006, §¥F 3, 9, 18, 113 N.M. 780, 833 P.2d 1146.
As the Court explained:
even if a defendant believed that he or she had performed an innocent or
lawful touching, the defendant might prefer, as a matter of trial strategy
or for some other reason, to deny that the incident occurred rather than
attempt to establish that the touching, though it may have occurred, was
lawful.
Id. § 10.
45} In this case, the defense was that the alleged touching did not occur, thus
making this situation similar to Orosco. In order to convict Defendant, the evidence
had to show that Defendant intentionally touched or applied force to Victim’s vaginal
area. [RP 305-07] Victim testified that on Thanksgiving Day 2016, Defendant texted

her to come to her bedroom, where he tried to kiss her, and then he touched her

vaginal area. [DS 2; MIO 8] The State also presented evidence that corroborated

10

11

12

13

14

15
16

Victim’s testimony. [DS 3-4] Defendant testified that the alleged vaginal touching did
not occur, and presented testimony to back up his claim. [DS 5-6; MIO 9]

(6 Defendant’s motion acknowledges that the defense strategy of denial resembles
the situation discussed in Orosco. [MIO 15] Nevertheless, he claims the evidence
placed unlawfulness at issue. [MIO 15-16] We disagree. Defendant does not refer us
to any evidence that would allow the jury to find that he touched Victim’s vaginal area,
but did so lawfully. To the extent that Defendant claims [MIO 14] that a jury note
during deliberations indicated that it was focusing on intent, the jury was instructed on
the element of intent. [RP 305-07] Because the defense strategy had removed
lawfulness from the jury’s consideration, once it determined that the touching
occurred, the jury’s question was consistent with the need for it to also find intent.
Accordingly, we conclude that the motion to amend is not viable and deny it.

; Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s judgment and sentence.

3} IT ISSO ORDERED.

JULIE #. VARGAS, J

dige

1|
WE CONCUR:
2 3 4 5
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge
Kastene Bogardus
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
5