State v. Leeson
149 N.M. 823
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Leeson was convicted of 16 counts of sexual exploitation of children under 30-6A-3(D) based on manufacturing child pornography.
- The State amended charges from 20 counts under 30-6A-3(D); the jury found 16 guilty and the judgment/sentence reflected a discrepancy between counts charged and counts sentenced.
- Before trial, Leeson moved to merge the counts under double jeopardy principles and challenged voluntariness of his confession; the court reserved on merger and ruled the confession voluntary.
- During trial, a video of Leeson’s confession was played; it referenced uncharged conduct, prompting a mistrial motion which the court denied.
- Evidence included numerous highly sexual photographs of Leeson’s live-in girlfriend’s two daughters under thirteen; the girlfriend reported them to police, leading to a police interview and a search revealing additional images.
- The court remanded to correct the judgment/sentence discrepancy but affirmed the denial of merger, voluntariness of confession, and mistrial requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the counts should be merged under double jeopardy | Leeson argues the State overcharged and violated double jeopardy by multiple counts. | Leeson contends the unit of prosecution requires merging. | No error; unit of prosecution defined; twenty counts are permissible. |
| Whether Leeson’s confession was involuntary | Leeson argues coercion via promises/threats rendered confession involuntary. | State argues totality of circumstances shows voluntariness. | Confession voluntary under totality of circumstances. |
| Whether the district court should have granted a mistrial | Leeson contends cumulative prejudicial references to drug use necessitated mistrial. | State argues curative admonitions sufficed. | No abuse of discretion; admonitions cured potential prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bernal, 140 N.M. 644, 146 P.3d 289 (2006-NMSC-050) (defines unit-of-prosecution framework for double jeopardy in NM)
- Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 (1991) (tripartite and protections against multiple punishments)
- Herron v. State, 127 N.M. 504, 984 P.2d 185 (1999-NMCA-081) (discusses unit of prosecution factors under double jeopardy)
- State v. Boergadine, 137 N.M. 92, 107 P.3d 532 (2005-NMCA-028) (unit of prosecution analysis guiding statute interpretation)
- State v. Olsson, 143 N.M. 351, 176 P.3d 340 (2008-NMCA-009) (distinguishes Section 30-6A-3(D) from other subsections for unit of prosecution)
- State v. Myers, 146 N.M. 128, 207 P.3d 1105 (2009-NMSC-016) (statutory definitions of obscenity in child-exploitation context)