State v. Felix
34,878
| N.M. Ct. App. | Apr 24, 2017Background
- Defendant Jose Ivan Felix (19) engaged in mutual touching and kissing with Victim (13) over several hours after meeting near her home.
- During the encounter, Defendant grabbed Victim’s hand and guided it under his shorts (over his underwear) onto his erect, clothed penis for a few seconds; Victim removed her hand when she felt his penis.
- Victim testified she was not threatened, not scared, and that Defendant did not make her do anything; she also testified the touching was not volitional.
- Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), fourth-degree felony under NMSA 1978, § 30-9-13(D)(1), and the district court entered a conditional discharge order.
- On appeal Defendant argued the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he used "physical force" (an element of UJI 14-921) to support the CSCM conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence that Defendant "used physical force" to support CSCM conviction? | State: Victim’s testimony that Defendant grabbed and then guided her hand onto his penis supports both causation and separate physical force elements. | Felix: "Hand-guiding" was not sufficient force; same act cannot satisfy both causing the touch and the force element. | Affirmed: jury could reasonably find separate acts (grabbing and guiding) constituted physical force; evidence sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baca, 124 N.M. 333, 950 P.2d 776 (N.M. 1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence: resolve conflicts for state and indulge inferences supporting verdict)
- State v. Sutphin, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (N.M. 1988) (appellate review asks whether substantial direct or circumstantial evidence supports each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Huff, 125 N.M. 254, 960 P.2d 342 (Ct. App. 1998) (distinguishes adult-victim consent context for CSC from CSC of minors where consent is legally irrelevant)
- State v. Moore, 150 N.M. 512, 263 P.3d 289 (Ct. App. 2011) (explains that a minor’s consent is legally irrelevant for certain child sexual offenses)