State v. Trujillo, 2 N.M. 532

Defendant Nick Adam Trujillo appeals a conviction for second degree CSCM.
Victim CA, age ≤12, testified Defendant touched her hand to his unclothed penis while in bed.
Defense argued lack of lighting and credibility; CA’s statements partially impeached but sufficient.
District court denied defense motion to amend degree; sentenced for second degree CSCM.
State argues conduct fits second degree; statute text limits second degree to unclothed intimate parts without causing touching.
Courts must interpret whether conduct constitutes second or third degree CSCM and remand accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supports CSCM conviction	Trujillo	Trujillo	Yes; sufficient to prove intentional touching by inference
Whether absence of the case agent violated confrontation/due process	State	Trujillo	No; absence did not violate rights; no compulsory process violation
Whether charge properly reflected degree; error in instruction	State	Trujillo	Yes; conduct is third degree CSCM; remand to third degree and resentencing

Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988) (cross-examination rights limitations not at issue here)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (confrontation rights; broad cross-examination principles)
State v. Sutphin, 107 N.M. 126 (1988) (sufficiency standard of review in criminal cases)
State v. Garcia, 114 N.M. 269 (1992) (substantial evidence standard; reviewing conflicts in evidence)
State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001 (1999) (standard for viewing evidence in light favorable to verdict)
State v. Hernandez, 1993 (1993) (credibility and weight of witness testimony; appellate deference)
State v. Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023 (1998) (Legislative intent and sentencing considerations under CSCM statutes)
State v. Davis, 2003-NMSC-022 (2003) (concerning appellate interpretation of CSCM sentencing issues)
Rivera v. State, 2004-NMSC-001 (2004) (statutory interpretation context; sentencing)