State v. Renteria
This text of State v. Renteria (State v. Renteria) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. A-1-CA-37350
5 RONALD RAY RENTERIA,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 8 Kea W. Riggs, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Public Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM
15 for Appellant
16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VANZI, Chief Judge.
18 {1} Defendant Ronald Ray Renteria appeals following his conviction for criminal
19 sexual contact of a minor. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary 1 disposition, proposing to uphold the conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum
2 in opposition. After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s
3 assertions of error. We therefore affirm.
4 {2} Because the relevant background information has previously been set forth, we
5 will avoid undue reiteration here. Instead, we will focus on the specific arguments
6 articulated in the memorandum in opposition.
7 {3} First, Defendant renews his argument that the district court erred in denying his
8 motion for mistrial. [MIO 6-9] He continues to argue that the potential juror’s remark
9 tainted the jury pool and effectively denied his right to a fair trial. [MIO 6] However,
10 given the isolated and spontaneous nature of the comment, we conclude that the
11 district court acted within its discretion in electing to give a curative instruction. See,
12 e.g., State v. Vialpando, 1979-NMCA-083, ¶¶ 21, 23, 25-27, 93 N.M. 289, 599 P.2d
13 1086 (arriving at a similar conclusion, under highly analogous circumstances); and
14 see generally State v. Fry, 2006-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 52-53, 138 N.M. 700, 126 P.3d 516
15 (explaining that in this context we review for abuse of discretion, and indicating that
16 when an inadvertent remark is at issue, a curative instruction is generally sufficient).
17 {4} We similarly reject Defendant’s assertion that it was incumbent upon the
18 district court to individually question the potential jurors. [MIO 8] We find no
19 indication that Defendant requested such individual voir dire, and we reject the
2 1 suggestion that the district court was obligated to undertake such action sua sponte.
2 Cf. State v. Johnson, 2010-NMSC-016, ¶ 55, 148 N.M. 50, 229 P.3d 523 (observing,
3 in relation to an analogous argument, that the failure of the district court to conduct
4 an unrequested inquiry does not require reversal).
5 {5} Defendant also continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence,
6 specifically and exclusively attacking the State’s showing with respect to the use of
7 force. [MIO 9-14] However, as Defendant acknowledges, [MIO 11] we have
8 previously held that there is no specific quantum of force necessary to establish this
9 element. State v. Huff, 1998-NMCA-075, ¶¶ 11-12, 125 N.M. 254, 960 P.2d 342.
10 “The issue is not how much force or violence is used, but whether the force or
11 violence was sufficient to negate consent.” Id. ¶ 12. In this case, the victim’s
12 description of the touching clearly negates consent. [MIO 3] We therefore reject the
13 claim of evidentiary insufficiency.
14 {6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary
15 disposition and above, we affirm.
16 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 _______________________________ 18 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge
3 1 WE CONCUR:
2 _____________________________ 3 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
4 _____________________________ 5 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Renteria, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-renteria-nmctapp-2018.