1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: S ep te m

be r 8, 201 6 4 N O. 33, 807 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 KEVI N PITNER, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 R oss C . S an ch ez , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 H ec tor

H

. Ba lde ra s, A tto rn ey

G en er al 13 Santa Fe , N M 14 Ja cque lin e R. Me din a, A ssi stant A tto rn ey G en er al 15 Albuquerque, N M 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 Karl E rich Martell, A ssistant Public De fender 19 Santa Fe , N M 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 GAR CIA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} D ef

en da nt a ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ionf

or c rim in al se xua l c ont ac t of am ino r 4 (C SC M ) , i n v i o l a t i o n o f N M S A 1 9 7 8 , S e c t i o n 3 0

- 9

- 1 3 ( A ) ( 2 0 0 3 )

. O n ap p ea l, 5 D ef en da nt arg ue s th at : ( 1) the St at e fa ile d to pr es en t su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce to sus ta in the 6 ve rd ic t; (2 ) the j ur

y w as im pr ope rl y ins tr uc te d; a n d ( 3 ) D e f e n da nt r ec ei ve d in ef

fe ct ive 7 as sis tanc e of

c ouns el a t tri al

. W e af

fi rm D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ion

. 8 I. BACKGRO UND 9 { 2} A j ury

found Defe ndant gu ilty

of on e count of second d egree CSCM after 10 V ic tim , the nin e- y ear- old c ousi n of De fe ndant’ s gir lf ri en d, ac cu se d him

of unz ipp ing 1 1 h e r “f o o t i e ” p a j a ma s a n du s i n g h i s f

i n g e r s t o r ub t h e s k i n b e l o wh e r

u n d e rw e a r

a n d“a 12 little above [her] privates.” Victim testified that on the nig ht of the incident, she was 13 stay ing ov ernight at her aunt’ s hous e, wher e De fendant wa s also stay ing. She stated 14 tha t sh e an d he r nin e- y ear- old , m al e co usi n w er e w at ch ing am ovi e in the top bun k 15 of a bunk bed when they fell a s l ee p . S he described that she was w earing “ footie” 16 paj am as that covered her “ feet[ ] to [her] neck.” 17 { 3} Victim

testified that in the m iddle of the nigh t, du e to a bad dream , she m oved 1 8 fr o m t h e t o p b u n kt o t h e l o we r b u n kt o s l ee p wi t h h e r f e ma l e c o u s i n , De fe n d an t ’s 19 gir lf ri en d. A t the tim e V ic tim m ove d to the low er bunk , D ef en da nt w as not

sle ep ing2

1 in the lower bunk with her c o u s i n . Bu t when V ictim aw oke in the m orning, her 2 “ paj am as we re unzipped and [De fendant’ s] hand was in [her ] pants.” V ictim stated 3 tha t w he n she w en t to bed, she zi ppe d her pa j am as “ [a ] ll the w ay to [he r] ne ck ” an d 4 she did no t unzip th em

during th e night; h owever , when she awoke, her paj am as we re 5 unz ipp ed

to “ ab out [ he r] w ai st[ ] lin e. ” Sh e state d th at D ef en da nt, w ho w as lay ing on 6 t h e o t h er s i d e o f Vi ct i m ’s fe m al e co u s i n , po s i t i o n ed h i s h an d “ [i ]n[h er ] un d er we ar [, ]” 7 and when sh e lo oked at h im , “ he pulled his hand aw ay . . . and he acted lik e he w as 8 as le ep [, ] ” cl osi ng his ey es “ ri ght aw ay . ” Sh e des cr ibe d that w hil e D ef en da nt’ s hand 9 wa s “ [n] ot very fa r” i n t o her underwe ar, De fendant “ wa s . . . touchin g [the] 10 ski n . . . [ u] nde rn ea th [h er ] unde rw ear” in a “ ru bbi ng” m oti on. O n c ro ss- ex am ina tio n, 11 Victim

clarif ied that Def

endant’ s hand did not tou ch her “privates,” but that “ [i] t wa s 12 ab ov e—a li tt le ab ov e [h er] pri va te s.” 13 { 4} Vict im

tes ti fie d t ha t s he th en “ go t up an d [sh e] wen t to go an d tel l [h er] aun t.” 14 Whil e she tol d he r aunt tha t De fe ndant w as unz ipp ing he r pa j am as , she ch ose not

to 15 te ll he r aunt tha t D ef

en da nt p ut h is h an d inhe r unde rw ear as she w as em ba rr as se d and 16 sc ar ed

. S oon the re af

te r, he r aunt c al le d he r m oth er , a nd h er m oth er “ ru she d ov er

to 1 7 t h e h o u s e ” t o p i c kh e r up . I tw a s n o t u n t i l l a t e r , w h e n s h e a rr i v e da th e r o w n h o me 18 that she told her m om De fendant put hi s hand in h er underw ear.3

1 { 5} Fo llo w ing the tr ia l, the j ur y w as pr ovi de d, in re le va nt p ar t, w ith the ins tr

uc tio n 2 co nta ini ng the e le m en ts o f CS CM a nd the de fi nit ion s of “ m ons ve ne ri s, ” “ vul va , ” an d 3 “ va gin a. ” T he jury was not pr ovi de d w itha n in str

uc tio n de fi nin g “ gr oin

. ” D ur ing 4 cl osi ng arg um en ts, the St at e inf orm ed the j ur

y tha t “ [t ] he re is no le ga l de fi nit ionf or 5 the groin area. ” T he State posed to the j ury : “ [i] s there a way for a 21-y ear old m an 6 to h av e his hands in [h er ] und er pa nts w ith out

tou ch ing the gr oina re a? Wha t do y ou 7 co nsi de r the gr oin ? .

. . [ D ] oe s the gr oin ar ea ex te nd pa st the unde rp an ts? If it doe s, 8 we h av e o u rs el v es an el emen t [] t h at i s m et .” De fe n d an t d i dn o to b

je ct t o t h e S t at e’s 9 co m m en ts i n c los ing a rg um en ts o r to the abse nc e of a de fin it ion fo r “ gr oin ” in the 10 j ur y ins tr uc tio ns. T he j ur

y c onvi ct ed

D ef en da nt o f CS CM

. D ef

en da nt a ppe al s th is 11 co nvi ct ion

. 12 II. DISC US SION 13 a. There W a s Suff icient Evidenc e P resent ed t o Sustain D efen dant’ s 14 C on vic ti on 15 { 6} D ef

en da nt c ont en ds tha t the re w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al to 16 sus tain his c onvi ct ionf or CS CM

. T he standard

of r ev ie wf or asuf fi ci en cy of the 17 evidence claim requires th e app ellate court to evaluate whether substant ial evidence 18 ex is ts to su pp or t t he ve rd ic t. Se e Sta te v . R udol fo , 2008 -N MSC- 036, ¶ 29, 144 N. M. 19 305, 187 P.3d 170 . T his stand ard re quires that “ [w ] e re view the evidence introduced 20 at trial to determ ine whether subs tantial evidence o f either a direct or c ircum stantial4

1 na tur e ex ist s to sup port a ve rd ic t of g uil t be y ond a re as ona ble doubt w ithr es pe ct

to 2 every elem ent essential to a conviction .” Sta te v . G ips on , 200 9- N MC A -0 53, ¶ 4, 146 3 N. M. 202, 207 P. 3d 11 79 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). “ This Court 4 evaluates the sufficiency of the evidence in a crim inal case by viewing the evidence 5 in the li gh t m os t favo ra ble to the ve rd ic t, r es olv ing a ll co nf lic ts and i ndul gin g a ll 6 perm iss ibl e inf

er en ce s inf

av or of uph old ing the c onvi ct ion , a nd d isr eg ar din g a ll 7 evidence and inference s to the contrary .” Sta te v . T ruj ill o , 201 2- N MC A -0 92, ¶ 5, 287 8 P. 3d 3 44. “ W e do not re w ei gh the ev ide nc e or subs tit ute our j udgm en t for tha t of the 9 fact f inder as long as there is sufficient ev i d en ce t o suppo rt the verdict. ” G ips on , 10 2009 -N MC A -0 53, ¶

4. 11 { 7} CSCM consist s of “ the unlawful and intentio nal touchin g of or apply ing force 12 to the int im at e pa rt s of a m ino r or the unl aw fu l an d in te nti ona l c au sin g of am ino r to 13 tou chone ’ s in tim at e pa rt s. ” Se ct ion 30- 9- 13( A ). T he statut e de fi ne s “ ‘ int im at e 14 parts’ ” as “ the prim ary genital area , groin, butto cks, anus or brea st.” Id

. I n or de r fo r 15 the S ta te to pr ove CS CM i n thi s c as e, it w as r equir ed

to show , in re le va nt p ar t, 16 bey ond a reasonable d oubt that Def endant “ touched or appli ed force to the unclot hed 17 [vagina, vulva, and/o r groin ar ea] of” Victim

. UJI 14-925 NMR A. The j ury

here w as 18 ins tr uc te d a cc or din gly

. Bo th p ar tie s r ec ogni ze, and

thi s C ourt ha s pr ev iou sly 19 ac k nowledged that the CSCM statute does not prov ide a definition of “ groin.” Se e5

1 St at e v. Ben ny E. , 199 0- N MC A -0 52, ¶ 18, 110 N

. M. 237 , 794 P. 2d 380 ( re co gni zi ng 2 tha t the L eg islatu re has not “ spe ci fi ca lly

de fi ne d” the te rm

“ gr oin ” as it

pe rt ai ns t o 3 CSCM)

. 4 { 8} D ef

en da nt c ont en ds tha t the S ta te f ai le d to pr ove th at

D ef en da nt unlaw fu lly 5 touched Victim ’ s “ uncloth ed vagina, vulva and/or groin” as Victim wa s “ sm all for her 6 ag e” a nd h er

und er w ear w er e “ gr an ny

panti es , . . . suc h th at

the w ai st b an d of

the 7 underwear w hen worn w as near the belly butto n of [a] sm all girl.” Furth er m ore, 8 De fendant argues that because Victim explicitly stated that De fendant did not to uch 9 “ her privates,

. . . there is no way the j ury could have found that [D efendant] touched 10 [Vic ti m ’s] va gi na , vu lv a, m on s v en eri s[ ,] or g ro in area .” W e d is ag ree. 11 { 9} V ic tim

te sti fi ed that wh ile D ef

en da nt’ s hand w as “ [n ] ot v er y f ar ” unde rn ea th 12 her underwear, it wa s “ a little above [her] privates.” It w ould be rea sonable for a j ury 13 to ass um e th atwhen Vict im , a y ou ng ch il d, was te st ifyin g reg ard in g h er “ pr iv at es ,” 14 sh e was refe rri ng to what i s t e c h n i c al ly term edto be he r “ vu lv a” o r he r “ va gi na .” 15 Thus, V ictim

m ade clear that D efendant d i d n o t “ touch[] or appl[y ] force to [her] 16 uncloth ed [vagina or vulva.] ” U JI 14-925. Ac cordingly , we m ust deter m ine whether 17 the re w as su ffi cie nt e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al f or aj ur y to co nc lud e be y ond a 18 re as ona

ble doubt tha t D ef

en da nt “ tou ch ed

or appl ie d f

or ce to [V ic tim ’ s] 19 uncloth ed [groin area .] ” Id . ( alteration om itted).6

1 { 10} A s w e ha ve state d, the L eg isl at ur e ha s no t pr om

ul ga te d a def

ini tio n f or the 2 te rm s “ gr oinor

gr oina re a. ” T he re fo re , w e m ust tur n to thi s C ourt’ s pr ev iou sly 3 ide nti fi ed

“ co m m on m eanin g of

the w or d—the f

old or de pr es sio n m ar

kin g th e lin e 4 betw e e n t he l ow e r part of t he abd om e n a nd t he t hi gh , a s w e l l a s t he r e gi on of that 5 line.” Ben ny E. , 199 0- N MC A -0 52, ¶ 18. T he be st w ay to cl earl y de sc ri be a nd e xpl ai n 6 the ar ea en co m

pa sse d by thi s “ co m

m on m eanin g” is to im ag ine a n in div idu al sittin g 7 in a chair. When a person is sitti ng, a f old n at u ra lly

appears delineating “ the lower 8 part of the abdom en and the thigh [. ] ” Id

. A s th e co m m on m eanin g e nc om

pa sse s th e 9 “ re g i o n o f th at line,” id. , i f w e w e r e t o p l a c e a s t r a i g h t - e d g e a c r o s s t h e f o l d t h a tis 10 cr ea te d, the li ne of

the str ai ght -e dge w oul d f al l sl igh tly ab ove the m ons ve ne ri s. T he 1 1 m o n s v e n e r i s i s i d e n t i f i e d a s “ t h e r o u n d e d e m i n e n c e o r p r o tub e r a n c e a t t h e low es t 12 p o i n t o f the abdom en of a w om an that is ordinarily covered w ith pu bic hair on an 1 3 a du l t . ” U J I 1 4

- 9 8 1 N M RA ( “T h e up p e r b o r d e r o f t h e h a i r o n t h e mo n s v e n e r i s f

o rms 14 a hor iz on ta l line

. ”)

. A cc or din gly , w he n V ic tim state d th at

D ef en da nt p ut h is h an d 15 beneath her underwe ar and was rubbing th e skin “ a little above [her] pri v ates[, ] ” a 16 j ur y c oul d have re as ona

bly de te rm ine d that D ef

en da nt “ tou ch ed or ap pli ed fo rc e to 17 [V ic tim ’ s] unc lothe d [ gr oina re a. ] ” U JI 14- 925; Sta te v . Sut phi n , 198 8- N MS C- 031, 18 ¶ 21, 107 N

. M. 126 , 753 P

. 2d 1 314 (s ta tin g th at an ap pe llate co urts d oe s “ not w ei gh7

1 the evidence and m ay

not sub stitut e its j udgm ent for th at o f the fa ct finder so long as 2 there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict”). 3 { 11} Insofar as D efendant argues that Victim ’ s underwear m ay have been too large, 4 s u ch t h at t h e w ai s tb an dwa s n ea r he r be l l ybu t t o n , an d s h e te s t i fi ed t h at De fe n d an t ’s 5 hand was “ [n] ot very far” beneath the wa istband of h er un derw ear we first note that 6 D ef en da nt p oin ts u s to nothin g in the re co rd show ing howthe und er w ear fi t V ic tim 7 atth e ti m e o f th e as sa ul t. See R u l e 1 2

- 2 1 3 ( A ) ( 4 ) N M RA ( s t a t i n g t h a tt h e appe lla nt 8 is responsi ble for providi ng c itations to the r ecord re levant to his or her argum ent). 9 Furtherm ore, Vic tim

testified that Def

endant was rubbing “ a little above [her] 10 privates[,] ” and “ [i] t is the exclusiv e province of the j ury to resolve fac tual 11 inconsi stencies in [that] testim ony .” Sta te v . O rti z- B urc iaga , 199 9- N MC A -1 46, ¶ 22, 12 128 N.M. 382, 993 P.2d 96 (internal quot ation marks and citation om itted). 13 A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e the re w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al to sus ta in 14 De fendant’ s convictio n of CSCM. 15 b. The Ju ry Was Not Im proper ly Instruct ed 16 { 12} D ef

en da nt a lle ge s th at

the S ta te “ cr ea te d an is sue w he n [ it] of fe re d a 17 conjec t u ra l definition for ‘ groin’ that does no t m atch the com m onlyacce pted 18 definition [. ] ” A s De fendant acknowledges, in the district court below, he neglected 19 to object to the j ury instructio ns or the State’ s com m ents during closing argum ent that8

1 he now dis put es . T hus, he as ks tha t w e re vie wthi s is sue f or f undam en ta l e rr or . “ T he 2 doc tr ine of funda m en ta l er ro r ap pli es onl y

und er e xc ep tio na l c ir cu m stanc es a nd o nly 3 to prevent a m iscarria ge of j ustice.” State v. B arber , 2004 -N MSC- 019, ¶ 8, 135 N.M. 4 621, 92 P

. 3d 6 33. O ne ba sis f or “ es ta bli shi ng f undam en ta l erro r oc curs w he n a 5 m ist ak e in the pr oc es s m ak es ac onvi ct ionf undam en ta lly

unf ai r notw ith standi ng the 6 apparent guilt of the accused.” State v. Ne varez , 201 0-NMC A- 049, ¶ 2 4, 14 8 N. M. 7 820, 242 P

. 3d 3 87 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). In suc h ac ont ex t, 8 w e m ust f ir st m ak e “ a de te rm ina tio n a s to w he the r a re as ona ble j ur or wo ul d have 9 been confused o r m isdirected by the j ury instruction .” Id

. ¶

25. H ow ev er , w e ha ve 10 sta te d th at

“ [t ] he re is no m isc ar

ri ag e of j ust ic e w he re , de spi te a ny m isunde rs tandi ng 11 by the j ur y , the c ir cu m stanc es of

the ca se de m onstrate tha t a ll the ne ce ssary e le m en ts 12 of the offense w ere satisfied bey ond a reasonable doub t.” Id

. ¶ 26. 13 { 13} W e not e tha t a sid e fr om c iti ng c as el aw

f or the f undam en ta l er

ro r standard

of 14 re vie w a nd the “ co m

m on m eanin g” fo r the de fi nit ion of “ gr oin , ” D ef

en da nt f ai ls t o 15 present a com

prehensive and developed argum ent explainin g how t h e ju ry 16 ins tr uc t i on s or the S t at e ’ s de sc r i pt i ve statem ents during closing argum ents consti tuted 17 fun d amen t al err or. D efendant does not argue that UJI 14-925 was not the proper 18 instructio n in thi s case. De fendant m erely asserts that “ t h e prosecutor crea ted an 19 issue[,] ” but does no t elaborate or develop the issue any further. If the State c reate d9

1 an i s s u e o f f

u n d amen t al erro r d u ri n g cl o s i n g ar g u m en t s , i ti s t h e D ef en d an t ’s 2 r es po ns ib il it y

to est ab li sh th is erro r. Se e Sta te v . Sos a , 2 0 0 9

- N M S C

- 0 5 6 , ¶ 2 6, 147 3 N

. M. 351, 223 P. 3d 348 (r ec ogni zi ng the thr ee fa ct or s tha t inf lue nc e an ap pe llate 4 court’ s decision for determ ining whether an err or m eets the threshold to reverse a 5 convictio n are “ (1) w hether the statem ent invades so m e distinct cons titutio nal 6 protection; (2) whether the statem ent is isolated and brief, or repeate d and persuasive; 7 an d ( 3) w he the r the state m en t i s in vit ed by the de fe nse ”)

. D ef

en da nt h as f

ai le d to 8 es tabl is h o r de ve lo p a n y e rro r in th is cas e. Id

. ¶ 25 (“ Only

in the m ost exception al 9 circum stances shou ld [the appellate court] , w ith the lim ited perspective o f a written 10 record, determ ine that all the safeguards at trial level h ave fa iled [to address im proper 11 sta te m en ts b y

c ouns el dur ing cl osi ng ar gum en t an d] shou ld w e re ve rs e the ve rd ic t of 12 a j ury [. ] ”). “ [T ] his Court’s policy is to refra in from

review ing un clear

or undevelop ed 13 ar gum en ts [ tha t] r equir e us t o gu es s a t w ha t [ a pa rty ’ s] ar gum en ts m igh t be [; ] ” thu s, 14 we decline to reviewthis un developed argum ent any further. Sta te v . U

rio ste , 201 1- 15 NMC A- 121, ¶ 29, 267 P. 3d 82 0 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). 16 c. De fend ant Failed to Show He Received Ineff ective Assistance of C ounsel 17 { 14} Fi na lly , pur suant t o Sta te v . F rank lin , 1967 -N MS C- 151, ¶ 9, 78 N

. M. 127, 428 18 P. 2d 9 82, a nd State v . B oyer , 198 5- N MC A -0 29, ¶ ¶ 17- 24, 103 N

. M. 655 , 712 P

. 2d 19 1, D ef en da nt arg ue s th at

his tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e as co unse l did no t ob j ec t t o10

1 the j ur y ins tr uc tio ns or the St at e’ s re fe re nc e to the te rm “ gr oin ” in clo sin g arg um en ts. 2 “ W e re view cla im s of ineffec tive assistance of counsel de nov o.” State v

. Dy la n J. , 3 2009 -N MC A -0 27, ¶

33, 145 N

. M. 719 , 204 P

. 3d 4 4. 4 { 15} W e not e tha t w hil e D ef en da nt conte nds he w as sub j ec te d to ine ff

ec tiv e 5 a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l , h e d o e s l i t t l e mo r e t h a n c i t e t o r e l e v a n tc a s e l a w . Ad d i t i o n a l l y, 6 he f ai ls t o pr ovi de ade ve lop ed a rg um en t or

a na ly sis that w oul d a ssi st this Co urt i n 7 de t e rm i ni ng w he t he r a pr i m a f a c i e c a se f

or i ne f f e c t i ve a ss i st a nc e of c ouns el w as 8 es ta bli she d. A s w e ha ve state d, w e w ill not re vie wunc le ar or und ev el ope d arg um en ts 9 th at wou ld req ui re us to sp ecu la te as to th e p art y ’s in te nd edarg um en t. Se e U rio ste , 10 2011

- N M C A

- 12 1, ¶

2 9. A c c or di ng l y , t he C ourti s un abl e t o pr op e r l y a na l y ze 11 D ef e n d an t ’ s i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i stanc e of

c ouns el a rg um en t, a nd w e m ust f urthe r co nc lud e 1 2 tha t D e f

e n d a n t h a s n o t e s t ab l i s h e d a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e f

o r i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n ce of 1 3 c o u n s e l

. D e f

e n d a n t c a n s t i l l p u r s u e h ab e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h i s c l a i m. 14 Se e Sta te v . H

obbs , 201 6- N MC A -0 06, ¶¶ 19, 23, 363 P. 3d 1259 (s ta tin g that the re is 15 a pr ef er en ce f or ha be as co rp us pr oc ee din gs as the a ve nue f or a dj udi ca tin g in ef

fe ct ive 1 6 a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i ms , e s p e c i a l l y w h e n t h e r e c o r df a i l s t o e s t ab l i s h ap r i ma 17 faci e cas e an d furt he r de ve lo pm en t i s n eces sa ry ), cert. denied , 201 5- N MC E RT -0 12, 18 370 P. 3d 4 72.11

1 III. CON CLU SION 2 { 16} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ion

. 3 { 17} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 4

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e 6 WE CO NCUR:

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 8 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 10 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e