State v. Carrasco
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. NO. 32,985 5 JAMIE CARRASCO, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 8 Gary Clingman, District Judge 9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Bennett J. Baur, Acting Chief Public Defender 13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 17 GARCIA, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant appeals his conviction for third degree criminal sexual penetration 2 (CSP), which was enhanced due to his habitual offender status. [RP 145] Our notice 3 proposed to affirm, and Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition. We remain 4 unpersuaded by Defendant s arguments and therefore affirm. 5 {2} Defendant continues to argue there was insufficient evidence to support his CSP 6 conviction. See State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 7 1314 (setting forth the standard of review for a substantial evidence review). For the 8 reasons detailed in our notice, we hold that the evidence supports the jury s 9 determination that Defendant inserted his penis in Victim s vagina, and that he did so 10 unlawfully and through the use of physical force or violence. [RP 97] See generally 11 State v. Sparks, 1985-NMCA-004, ¶¶ 6-7, 102 N.M. 317, 694 P.2d 1382 (defining 12 substantial evidence as that evidence which a reasonable person would consider 13 adequate to support a defendant s conviction). While Defendant maintains that Victim 14 consented to his act [MIO 4], we again emphasize that the jury was free to reject 15 Defendant s version of the events. See State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 16 438, 971 P.2d 829 ( Contrary evidence supporting acquittal does not provide a basis 17 for reversal because the jury is free to reject Defendant s version of the facts. ); see 18 also State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing 2 1 that it is for the factfinder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and 2 to determine where the weight and credibility lay). 3 {3} For the reasons set forth herein and in our notice, we affirm. 4 {4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8 9 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 10 11 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
