State v. Kapuscinski

Ryan Kapuscinski was convicted by a jury in Bernalillo County of multiple counts, including criminal sexual contact and penetration of a minor, and bribery of a witness.
Following a seven-day trial, he was sentenced to 75 years in prison.
On appeal, Kapuscinski raised five main issues regarding his trial and conviction, including claims of due process and evidentiary errors.
The case was decided on briefs pursuant to an administrative order for expedited resolution in criminal appeals.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals reviewed the issues and affirmed all aspects of the district court’s rulings and Kapuscinski’s convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process regarding joint questioning of victims	No improper conduct; no violation established	Statements tainted by joint questioning violated due process	No error; evidence properly admitted
Equal protection/peremptory jury challenges	Defendant not entitled to additional challenges under the rule	Faced many counts, thus deserved more peremptory challenges	No error; challenges as per rule
Biased juror/failed jury purge	Juror excused properly; verdict not affected	Replacement insufficient; whole jury tainted	No fundamental error; verdict stands
Admission of photographic evidence	Evidence relevant to charges; foundation provided	Photos lacked relevance/foundation, should be excluded	Properly admitted
Cumulative error	No errors to aggregate	Multiple errors combined warrant reversal	No cumulative error

State v. McKelvy, 91 N.M. 384 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (number of peremptory challenges depends on offenses charged, not possible sentence)
State v. Gallegos, 146 N.M. 88 (N.M. 2009) (reviewing fundamental error doctrine in jury misconduct context)
State v. Samora, 307 P.3d 328 (N.M. 2013) (no cumulative error when no individual errors)
State v. Pettigrew, 116 N.M. 135 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993) (replacement of a juror with an alternate before deliberations does not affect verdict)