Opinion ID: 1427536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence as to cspm and cscm

Text: Defendant argues that, although evidence was presented by the state indicating that the child's anus had been penetrated on three different occasions prior to his death, the jail mate's testimony was the only evidence linking defendant with such acts, and that this evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of CSPM and CSCM. Defendant also contends the inmate's testimony concerning defendant's statement that he shoved something up the boy's butt does not indicate defendant had penetrated the child for sexual reasons. Defendant contends the evidence instead indicated that he had been attempting to discipline or punish the child in order to persuade him to stop his incontinence. Defendant urges that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of CSPM or CSCM because there was no proof that he committed such acts with the requisite criminal intent. Criminal sexual penetration, defined by our legislature in Section 30-9-11, provides as follows: Criminal sexual penetration is the unlawful and intentional causing of a person, other than one's spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio or anal intercourse, or the causing of penetration, to any extent and with any object, of the genital or anal openings of another, whether or not there is an emission. A. Criminal sexual penetration in the first degree consists of all criminal sexual penetration perpetrated: (1) on a child under thirteen years of age; or (2) by the use of force or coercion which results in great bodily harm or great mental anguish to the victim. Whoever commits criminal sexual penetration in the first degree is guilty of a first degree felony.... Section 30-9-13 defines criminal sexual contact of a minor as: [U]nlawfully and intentionally touching or applying force to the intimate parts of a minor other than one's spouse or unlawfully and intentionally causing a minor, other than one's spouse to touch one's intimate parts. For purposes of this section, intimate parts means the primary genital area, groin, buttock, anus or breast. A. Criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree consists of all criminal sexual contact of a minor perpetrated: (1) on a child under thirteen years of age ... . Defendant specifically argues that his convictions of CSPM and CSCM under Sections 30-9-11 and -13 were not supported by substantial evidence because the state failed to prove that the anal penetration of the child was done with the intent of arousing or gratifying sexual desire in the victim or himself. Citing the requirements of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 18, of the New Mexico Constitution, defendant asserts that proof of such intent must be read into the language of both the CSPM and CSCM statutes, otherwise the statutes are unconstitutional and overbroad, prohibiting both innocent as well as criminal conduct. Defendant reasons that the acts of a parent or caretaker of a child when dressing, bathing, changing diapers, or using a rectal thermometer may involve intentional touching or penetration of the child's intimate parts. Similarly, defendant contends that even necessary medical treatment performed by a health care provider falls within the prohibition of the statutes. We disagree. We begin our analysis by noting that the CSPM and CSCM statutes specifically limit the application of such offenses to instances wherein defendant's conduct in touching or penetrating the child is unlawful or unlawfully committed. The terms unlawful or unlawfully limit the scope of prohibited conduct to those acts that are without legal justification or excuse. See State v. Larson, 94 N.M. 795, 617 P.2d 1310 (1980); State v. Noble, 90 N.M. 360, 563 P.2d 1153 (1977); Territory v. Anderson, 4 N.M. 213, 13 P. 21 (1887); see also State v. Chenault, 20 N.M. 181, 147 P. 283 (1915). Neither CSPM nor CSCM prohibit the touching or penetration of the intimate parts of a minor for purposes of providing reasonable medical treatment to a child, nor do they criminalize nonabusive parental or custodial child care. Moreover, the constitutionality of a statute is generally subject to challenge only by a person who demonstrates the unconstitutional application of the statute to him. State v. Casteneda, 97 N.M. 670, 642 P.2d 1129 (Ct.App. 1982). Defendant also argues that there is no clear demarcation between both CSPM and CSCM and the offenses of battery, contained in NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-4 (Repl.Pamp. 1984), or child abuse, proscribed by Section 30-6-1. We disagree. Our CSPM statute prohibits penetration of the genital or anal openings of a child. § 30-9-11(A)(1). Similarly, CSCM also prohibits the unlawful touching of the intimate parts of another, other than one's spouse. § 30-19-13. In defining intimate parts, the CSCM statute lists five separate protected areas: the genital area, groin, buttocks, anus, and breast. § 30-9-13. The legislative intent underlying both CSPM and CSCM is to protect children from unlawful intrusions to each enumerated area of the body. See State v. Williams, 105 N.M. 214, 730 P.2d 1196 (Ct.App. 1986). The language of the statutes clearly prohibits such unlawful intrusions. Child abuse and battery are distinguished from CSPM and CSCM in that the latter statutes only apply when the proscribed conduct involves a penetration or touching of the specifically-defined intimate areas. Both the CSPM and CSCM statutes must be construed in light of the purposes for which they were enacted and the wrongs sought to be remedied. See Tijerina v. Baker, 78 N.M. 770, 438 P.2d 514 (1968). The legislatively-protected interests under the CSPM and CSCM statutes are aimed at protecting the bodily integrity and personal safety of children. See State v. Williams . It lies within the legislature's power to specify different criminal standards pertaining to these areas of the body, given the fact that greater pain, embarrassment, psychological trauma, or humiliation may result from contact with intimate body parts as compared to contact with other parts of the body. Thus, unlike battery, conduct consisting of unlawful penetration of the genital or anal areas of a child or a touching of the intimate parts of a minor is governed specifically by Sections 30-9-11 and -13. Unlawful contact, intentionally perpetrated upon a victim and involving areas of the body other than the five enumerated intimate parts, may be punishable under other statutes, such as battery, mayhem, child abuse, or, in severe cases, homicide. See State v. Lujan, 76 N.M. 111, 412 P.2d 405 (1966) (specific statute controls over general statute). We determine that the CSPM and CSCM statutes constitute separate distinguishable offenses. Defendant also asserts that the CSPM and CSCM statutes are unconstitutionally vague because a person of ordinary intelligence would not be able to determine the line of demarcation between lawful and unlawful conduct as proscribed by such offenses. In Larson, when the defendant was charged with coercing his two minor daughters into performing various sexual acts with him, we said: We do not in any way believe that a person of ordinary intelligence would not understand which type of conduct is proscribed by Section 30-9-11... . As to a child under thirteen, even though a case might be hypothesized which would fit within the terms of the statute but for which there should be no criminal liability, we do not think it `encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.' (Citations omitted.) Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 [92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110] ... (1972). `Unlawful' has been defined by this Court as `without excuse [or] justification,' Territory v. Gonzales, 14 N.M. 31, 38, 89 P. 250 (1907), and the use of that term by the statute does not render the statute void for vagueness in these circumstances. 94 N.M. at 796-97, 617 P.2d at 1311-12 (emphasis added); see also State v. Jimenez, 89 N.M. 652, 556 P.2d 60 (Ct.App. 1976) (statutory provisions regarding second and third degree CSP not void for vagueness); State v. Minns, 80 N.M. 269, 454 P.2d 355 (Ct.App 1969) (words indecent handling or touching in sexual assault statute not unconstitutionally vague when considered in light of statute as a whole). As the discussion below indicates, we also do not believe the statutes in question are unconstitutionally vague when the evidence shows defendant intended to cruelly punish his victim. The proscription on vagueness in criminal statutes serves three important functions: (1) It allows individuals a fair opportunity to determine whether their conduct is prohibited. (2) It prevents impermissible delegation of legislative authority to police, prosecutors, and courts to determine wheth conduct is criminal. (3) In cases in which the prohibited conduct abuts with conduct protected by the first amendment, it avoids impermissible chilling of protected speech through overbroad prohibitions. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); see also United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954) (criminal statute must give person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that conduct is forbidden). It is well established that vagueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand. United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 550, 95 S.Ct. 710, 714, 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975) (citing United States v. National Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 83 S.Ct. 594, 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963)); see also State v. Casteneda, 97 N.M. 670, 642 P.2d 1129 (Ct.App. 1982) (criminal solicitation statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied). In National Dairy Products Corp., the Supreme Court discussed claims of vagueness and distinguished between the question of whether a statute is facially valid and the question of whether the statute is valid as applied. 372 U.S. at 32, 83 S.Ct. at 597. The Court held that [i]n determining the sufficiency of the notice a statute must of necessity be examined in the light of the conduct with which a defendant is charged... . This is not to say that a bead-sight indictment can correct a blunderbuss statute, for the latter itself must be sufficiently focused to forewarn of both its reach and coverage. Id. at 33, 83 S.Ct. at 597. See also Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1985) (penal statute must define offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement); State v. Brecheisen, 101 N.M. 38, 677 P.2d 1074 (Ct.App. 1984) (statute is not void for vagueness if it is susceptible to a reasonable and practical interpretation). A corollary to defendant's vagueness argument is the question of legislative intent  that is, did the legislature implicitly intend to require proof of a specific sexual intent as an element of CSPM or CSCM? See Flink v. State, 683 P.2d 725 (Alaska App. 1984) (discussing vagueness contention incident to legislative intent). After reviewing the statutory provisions of our CSPM and CSCM statutes, we do not believe the legislature intended to adopt a requirement of specific sexual intent as an element of either statute. Examination of Sections 30-9-11 (CSPM) and -13 (CSCM), indicates that our legislature, by 1975 N.M. Laws, Chapter 109, Sections 2 and 3, repealed the prior forcible rape and sexual assault statutes and enacted comprehensive new statutory provisions, patterned in part after statutes proscribing criminal sexual conduct adopted by the state of Michigan. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann., §§ 750.520a-750.520c (West Supp. 1989). [1] See generally, Washburn, Rape Law: The Need for Reform, 5 N.M.L.Rev. 279 (1974); Note, Recent Statutory Developments in the Definition of Forcible Rape, 61 Va.L.Rev. 1500 (1975). Both the CSPM and CSCM statutes as enacted by our legislature materially modified our criminal code provisions relating to sexual offenses. The legislatively-protected interest under the New Mexico CSPM and CSCM statutes focuses upon the bodily integrity and personal safety of individuals, both female and male. See State v. Williams . In Flink, the court analyzed the different approaches taken by a number of state legislatures, including Michigan, in revising their statutes proscribing criminal sexual acts. As observed in Flink, a number of states have followed the approach suggested by the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, which defines unlawful criminal sexual contact as any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire. Model Penal Code § 213.4 (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1980). As noted in Flink: [M]ost state provisions that are based upon the Model Penal Code define sexual contact to include this specific intent. See e.g., N.Y. [Penal] Law Ann. § 130.00(3) (McKinney 1975) (`sexual contact' means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person not married to the actor for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of any party.). .... ... [ T ] he primary distinction between the Model Penal Code and the New York provisions on the one hand, and the Michigan and Arizona codes, on the other, is that the former expressly require a specific intent and the latter do not. Id. at 729 (emphasis added). The court in Flink discussed the distinctions between those states which have followed the approach advocated by the Model Penal Code, and the approaches taken by Michigan and Arizona. The court observed: [T]he Michigan and Arizona statutes, ... are ... distinct from the statutes ultimately adopted by [the Alaska] legislature. Michigan includes language in its definition of sexual contact clearly suggesting general intent. This language was not carried over into the Alaska statute. Arizona adopted specific defenses to charges of sexual abuse which are likewise absent from the Alaska statutes. Id. at 733. In People v. Jarman, 140 Mich. App. 93, 362 N.W.2d 900 (1985), the court considered an argument similar to that urged by defendant herein. Jarman was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving digital penetration of his fourteen-year-old daughter. He requested, and was denied, a jury instruction providing that, if the jury determined that the alleged unlawful act in fact had been committed by him, the act was not unlawful unless it `had as its purpose the arousing, stimulating or gratifying of the sexual emotions [or it must have been done with some other sexually improper intent or purpose].' Id. at 95, 362 N.W.2d at 901 (quoting CJI 20:2:04). The Jarman court observed that, although the instruction requested by defendant had been drafted by the Michigan jury instruction committee, the proffered instruction was an inaccurate statement of law because it purported to add a specific-intent requirement not contained in the crime of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Id. See also People v. Clement Anderson, 111 Mich. App. 671, 314 N.W.2d 723 (1981); People v. Garrow, 99 Mich. App. 834, 298 N.W.2d 627 (1980). But see People in the Interest of J.A., 733 P.2d 1197 (Colo. 1987) (interpreting similar statutory language as creating a specific-intent requirement); State v. Bicknese, 285 N.W.2d 684 (Minn. 1979) (holding that reasonably construed language, found in statute, should not be included in jury instruction because it unconstitutionally dilutes state's burden of proof on intent issue). We believe that, in enacting this state's CSPM and CSCM statutes, our legislature followed the Michigan approach which does not require proof of a sexual purpose. People v. Jarman ; see also State v. Keyonnie, 91 N.M. 146, 571 P.2d 413 (1977) (Section 30-9-11 does not require proof of specific intent to commit CSP); State v. Scarborough, 55 N.M. 201, 230 P.2d 235 (1951) (specific intent not required as element of proof under prior offense of rape). The statutes contain no mention of sexual purpose as an element of the offenses. In adopting our CSPM and CSCM statutes, our legislature omitted any language similar to the Model Penal Code's sexual purpose standard. We interpret this omission and the plain language of the statute to indicate a legislative intent to proscribe conduct involving the unlawful penetration of, or contact with, the intimate parts of another. See State v. Lujan, 103 N.M. 667, 712 P.2d 13 (Ct.App. 1985) (statute must be interpreted to comport with its plain language). A person who unlawfully and intentionally penetrates the genital or anal openings of a child has committed CSPM, whether the person was motivated by a desire to cruelly punish the child or to obtain sexual gratification. This interpretation of the statutes comports with the clear language of the two acts and recognizes the special potential for harm inherent in unlawful contact with, or penetration of, the enumerated body parts, even in cases in which the actor did not intend to arouse or satisfy sexual desire. Applying the above analysis to the facts detailed above, we determine that both the CSPM and CSCM statutes are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; that a person of ordinary intelligence easily could have determined that defendant's conduct fell within the class of acts prohibited by the statutes; that the statutes do not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory prosecution; and that the state presented substantial evidence supporting each of defendant's convictions of CSPM and CSCM.