N.M. Stat. § 30-9-13 (2026)

A. Criminal sexual contact of a minor is the unlawful and intentional touching of or
applying force to the intimate parts of a minor or the unlawful and intentional causing of
a minor to touch one’s intimate parts. For the purposes of this section, "intimate parts"
means the primary genital area, groin, buttocks, anus or breast.

   B. Criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree consists of all criminal
sexual contact of the unclothed intimate parts of a minor perpetrated:

         (1)      on a child under thirteen years of age; or

         (2)      on a child thirteen to eighteen years of age when:

           (a) the perpetrator is in a position of authority over the child and uses that
authority to coerce the child to submit;

               (b) the perpetrator uses force or coercion that results in personal injury to the
child;

         (c) the perpetrator uses force or coercion and is aided or abetted by one or
more persons; or

               (d) the perpetrator is armed with a deadly weapon.

    Whoever commits criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree is guilty of
a second degree felony for a sexual offense against a child and, notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978, shall be sentenced to a minimum term of
imprisonment of three years, which shall not be suspended or deferred. The imposition
of a minimum, mandatory term of imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of this
subsection shall not be interpreted to preclude the imposition of sentencing
enhancements pursuant to the provisions of Sections 31-18-17, 31-18-25 and 31-18-26
NMSA 1978.

   C. 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; or

         (2)      on a child thirteen to eighteen years of age when:
           (a) the perpetrator is in a position of authority over the child and uses this
authority to coerce the child to submit;

             (b) the perpetrator uses force or coercion which results in personal injury to
the child;

         (c) the perpetrator uses force or coercion and is aided or abetted by one or
more persons; or

             (d) the perpetrator is armed with a deadly weapon.

    Whoever commits criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree is guilty of a
third degree felony for a sexual offense against a child.

   D. Criminal sexual contact of a minor in the fourth degree consists of all criminal
sexual contact:

       (1)   not defined in Subsection C of this section, of a child thirteen to eighteen
years of age perpetrated with force or coercion; or

        (2)    of a minor perpetrated on a child thirteen to eighteen years of age when
the perpetrator, who is a licensed school employee, an unlicensed school employee, a
school contract employee, a school health service provider or a school volunteer, and
who is at least eighteen years of age and is at least four years older than the child and
not the spouse of that child, learns while performing services in or for a school that the
child is a student in a school.

   Whoever commits criminal sexual contact in the fourth degree is guilty of a fourth
degree felony.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-9-23, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 109, § 4; 1987, ch. 203,
§ 2; 1991, ch. 26, § 3; 2001, ch. 161, § 3; 2003 (1st S.S.), ch. 1, § 4.

                                       ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For sexual exploitation of children, see 30-6A-3 NMSA 1978.

For provision that testimony of victim hereunder need not be corroborated, see 30-9-15
NMSA 1978.

For limitations on testimony regarding victim's past sexual conduct, see 30-9-16 NMSA
1978.

For the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, see Chapter 29, Article 11A
NMSA 1978.
The 2003 (1st S.S.) amendment, effective February 3, 2004, designated the formerly
undesignated introductory language as Subsection A, inserted present Subsection B,
redesignated former Subsections A and B as present Subsections C and D, added "for
a sexual offense against a child" at the end of Subsection C, and substituted "C" for "A"
in Paragraph (1) of Subsection D.

The 2001 amendment, effective July 1, 2001, inserted "of a minor" in the last
paragraph in Subsection A; and in Subsection B inserted the Paragraph (1) designation
and added Paragraph (2).

The 1991 amendment, effective June 14, 1991, rewrote the first sentence which read
"Criminal sexual contact of a minor is unlawfully 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"; in
Paragraph (2) of Subsection A, substituted "the perpetrator uses" for "by the use of" at
the beginning of subparagraphs (b) and (c) and made related stylistic changes; and
made a stylistic change in the second sentence of the section.

The 1987 amendment, effective June 19, 1987, inserted "not defined in Subsection A
of this section" in the first paragraph of Subsection B.

Three requirements to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support
multiple convictions in child sex abuse cases. — To determine the sufficiency of the
evidence to support multiple convictions in child sex abuse cases, the child victim must
describe the proscribed act or acts committed with sufficient specificity to establish that
unlawful conduct did in fact occur and to permit a jury to differentiate between the
various types of sex acts to which the child victim was subjected, the child must
describe the number of proscribed acts committed with sufficient certainty to support
each of the counts alleged in the information or indictment, and the child must describe
the general time period in which the proscribed acts occurred. State v. Atencio, 2024-
NMSC-022, aff'g in part and rev'g in part 2021-NMCA-061, 499 P.3d 635.

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for multiple counts of
criminal sexual penetration of a minor. — The evidence was sufficient to support
defendant's convictions for twenty-one counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor
where the ten-year-old child testified that he went to defendant's trailer every day for
four or five months and that defendant touched the child's penis under his clothes every
day that he went to defendant's trailer, where the child's sister testified that she saw
defendant's hands in the child's pants, and where defendant admitted that he had
touched the child's penis between twenty and thirty times and that he put the child's
penis in his mouth once. State v. Atencio, 2024-NMSC-022, aff'g in part and rev'g in
part 2021-NMCA-061, 499 P.3d 635.

Second degree criminal sexual contact of a minor. — Second degree criminal
sexual contact of a minor as defined in Subsection B of Section 30-9-13 NMSA 1978 is
limited to instances in which a defendant touches or applies force to the unclothed
intimate parts of a minor. State v. Trujillo, 2012-NMCA-092, 287 P.3d 344, cert. denied,
2012-NMCERT-008.

Sufficient evidence of third degree criminal sexual contact of a minor. — Where
defendant caused the ten-year-old victim to touch defendant’s unclothed penis while in
bed; the trial court instructed the jury using the language of the uniform jury instruction
in effect at the time for third degree criminal sexual contact of a minor; and defendant
was found guilty of and was sentenced for second degree criminal sexual contact of a
minor, defendant’s conduct was a third degree felony under Subsection C, not a third
degree felony under Subsection B. State v. Trujillo, 2012-NMCA-092, 287 P.3d 344,
cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-008.

Sufficient evidence. — Where defendant, who was the spiritual leader of a religious
group that lived together, was convicted of criminal sexual contact of a minor based on
an unclothed experience with a teenage child who was a member of defendant's
religious community; defendant claimed that the experience was a purely spiritual
healing experience; the teenage child visited defendant alone and lay in bed naked with
defendant; and the child testified that defendant kissed the child on the breast, there
was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction of criminal sexual contact of a
minor. State v. Bent, 2013-NMCA-108, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-012.

Where defendant was charged with two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor that
occurred between January 1, 2009 and February 12, 2009; most of the evidence related
to an incident that occurred on February 11, 2009; the victim testified that defendant
had touched the victim inappropriately prior to February 11, 2009; defendant testified on
cross-examination that inappropriate things had been going on between defendant and
the victim about for about a week; and a police officer testified that defendant admitted
touching the victim inappropriately twice within the last week, there was sufficient
evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant inappropriately touched the victim on
February 11, 2009 and on another occasion between January 1, 2009 and February 12,
2009. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-064, 302 P.3d 111, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-
004.

Where the evidence showed that the defendant and the victim went to the trash dump
two to three times per month during the period from October 2001 through May 2005;
that the defendant sexually molested the victim on each trip when the defendant and the
victim were alone; and that although the defendant’s step-daughter accompanied the
defendant and the victim to the trash dump on some occasions, there was no evidence
that the step-daughter accompanied the defendant and the victim to the trash dump
during the period from October 2001 through March 2002, the evidence was sufficient to
support the state’s charges of one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor for each
month between October 2001 and March 2002. State v. Gipson, 2009-NMCA-053, 146
N.M. 202, 207 P.3d 1179.

Where the victim testified that defendant touched the victim’s vulva and patted the
victim’s buttocks; the touching left the victim upset and sad; when confronted with
accusations of improper sexual contact by one parent, defendant apologized, and when
confronted by the victim’s other parent defendant said that defendant had been
forgiven, sufficient evidence supported defendant’s convictions for criminal sexual
contact with a minor. State v. Kerby, 2005-NMCA-016, 138 N.M. 232, 118 P.3d 740,
aff’d, 2007-NMSC-014, 141 N.M. 413, 156 P.3d 704.

Where defendant was convicted of numerous counts of criminal sexual contact of a
minor perpetrated on his eight-year-old daughter and four-year-old stepdaughter; the
four-year-old victims’ testimony that defendant twice forced her to place her hand on
defendant’s penis, which was corroborated by the eight-year-old child victim, the
evidence was sufficient to support convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor.
State v. Tapia, 2015-NMCA-048, cert. denied, 2015-NMCERT-004 and cert. denied,
2015-NMCERT-004.

Sufficient evidence of attempt to commit second-degree criminal sexual contact
of a minor. — Where defendant was charged with attempt to commit second-degree
criminal sexual contact of a minor, and where the child victim testified at trial that
defendant entered the room where she was sleeping, lifted the blanket off her, pulled
down her pajama pants and underwear, pulled down his own pants, and rubbed her arm
while masturbating, then walked to the other side of the bed, laid down next to her, and
continued masturbating while rubbing her upper ribs over her clothing, and further
testified that she was afraid that defendant was going to touch her private parts, there
was substantial evidence to support defendant's conviction for attempted criminal
sexual contact of a minor. State v. Notah, 2022-NMCA-005, cert. denied.

The district court did not err in denying defendant's proposed jury instruction for
attempt to commit third-degree CSCM as a lesser included offense. — Where
defendant was charged with attempt to commit second-degree criminal sexual contact
of a minor (CSCM), and where the child victim testified at trial that defendant entered
the room where she was sleeping, lifted the blanket off her, pulled down her pajama
pants and underwear, pulled down his own pants, and rubbed her arm while
masturbating, then walked to the other side of the bed, laid down next to her, and
continued masturbating while rubbing her upper ribs over her clothing, and further
testified that she was afraid that defendant was going to touch her private parts, and
where defendant requested a jury instruction for a lesser included offense of attempt to
commit third-degree CSCM, claiming that the evidence tended to better prove an intent
to touch the child's breast area, which remained clothed, thus supporting a third-degree
rather than a second-degree charge, the district court did not err in denying defendant's
proposed jury instruction, because the elements of the crime differ in such a way that
each may be committed without necessarily committing the other. Third-degree CSCM
is not a lesser included offense of second-degree CSCM, because the element
distinguishing between the two degrees of CSCM under thirteen years of age is whether
the child victim's intimate part was clothed or unclothed, and in this case there was no
reasonable view of the evidence that would support a jury finding that defendant
partially undressed the child in an attempt to touch a clothed intimate part of her body
but not an unclothed intimate part. State v. Notah, 2022-NMCA-005, cert. denied.
Position of authority. — Where the defendant and the victim were neighbors; the
victim’s mother worked with the defendant and the families were good friends; the
families did things together; the defendant fixed things at the victim’s house and took
the trash to the trash dump as requested by the victim’s mother; the victim thought of
the defendant as a father figure; the victim spent the night at the defendant’s house on a
regular basis; the victim’s mother entrusted the defendant with the victim’s care; the
defendant allowed the victim to earn money at the defendant’s place of business, the
jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was in a position of authority over the
victim. State v. Gipson, 2009-NMCA-053, 146 N.M. 202, 207 P.3d 1179.

Where the minor victims believed that the defendant, who was a massage therapist,
was a professional healthcare provider; the victims had never had a massage; the
defendant told the victims that a breast and buttock massage was part of a normal body
massage, the defendant was in a position of authority over the victims. State v. Haskins,
2008-NMCA-086, 144 N.M. 287, 186 P.3d 916, cert. denied, 2008-NMCERT-005, 144
N.M. 331, 187 P.3d 677.

"Position of authority" interpreted. — In 30-9-10(E) NMSA 1978, the legislature has
designated certain relationships with a child that represent a "position of authority," and
the language "who, by reason of that position, is able to exercise undue influence over a
child" does not pertain to each of the types of position of authority listed in the definition.
Under the definition of "position of authority", a household member is presumed to be
able to exercise undue influence over a child such that additional proof concerning a
perpetrator’s use or possession of such authority is not required. State v. Erwin, 2016-
NMCA-032, cert. denied.

Where defendant, who was charged with criminal sexual contact of a child thirteen to
eighteen years of age, did not dispute the evidence that he was a household member,
but claimed that the state failed to prove that he used this position of authority to coerce
the child to submit to sexual contact, the state was not required to prove that defendant,
by reason of his position as a household member, was able to exercise undue influence
over the child, because the legislature has designated certain relationships with a child,
including a household member, that represent a position of authority for purposes of
prosecution under 30-9-13 NMSA 1978. State v. Erwin, 2016-NMCA-032, cert. denied.

Trustworthiness doctrine. —- The mere fact that defendant made multiple
confessions or that he was suffering from Huntington’s Disease when he made the
confessions that he had inappropriately touched his daughter, who was two year old,
and had made her touch him was not sufficient to establish the trustworthiness of his
statements which the state relied upon to establish the corpus delicti of criminal sexual
contact of a minor. State v. Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, 141 N.M. 93, 150 P.3d 1043.

The mere fact that defendant’s daughter, who was two years old, exhibited two of
sixteen behaviors that could be corroborative of sexual abuse was not sufficient to
establish the trustworthiness of the defendant’s statements that he had inappropriately
touched his daughter and had made her touch him which the state relied upon to
establish the corpus delicti of criminal sexual contact of a minor. State v. Weisser, 2007-
NMCA-015, 141 N.M. 93, 150 P.3d 1043.

Denial of severance motion. — Where the trial court denied defendant's motion to
sever the counts in the indictment relating to each of two female victims, with the result
that the jury heard and was allowed to consider the evidence pertaining to both victims,
and the evidence relating to each victim would not have been cross-admissible in
separate trials to show defendant's plan to commit the offenses of criminal sexual
contact of a minor in the third degree by a person in a position of authority and
aggravated indecent exposure, the trial court abused its discretion when it denied
defendant's severance motion for two trials. State v. Gallegos, 2005-NMCA-142, 138
N.M. 673, 125 P.3d 652, cert. granted, 2005-NMCERT-012, 138 N.M. 772, 126 P.3d
1137, aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 2007-NMSC-007, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828.

Deportation as consequence of guilty plea. — The district court was not
constitutionally required to advise defendant that his guilty plea to criminal sexual
contact of a minor almost certainly would result in his deportation. State v. Paredez,
2004-NMSC-036, 136 N.M. 533, 101 P.3d 799.

Guilty plea entered knowingly and voluntarily. — In prosecution for criminal sexual
contact of a minor in the third degree, where defendant understood the charges,
understood the penalties, understood his constitutional rights and that he was waiving
them, understood the factual basis on which the charges were brought, agreed with the
facts, and fully intended to enter a plea of guilty, and at no time did defendant say
anything that would indicate that he was reluctant to plead guilty, that he had been
unduly rushed into agreeing to enter a plea, or that he was entering the plea based on
fear or concern that, even though he was innocent, his attorney was not prepared for
trial and he would likely be convicted although innocent, plea was entered knowingly
and voluntarily. State v. Moore, 2004-NMCA-035, 135 N.M. 210, 86 P.3d 635.

Not vague or overbroad. — The statutory crime of criminal sexual contact of a minor is
not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Benny E., 1990-NMCA-052, 110 N.M. 237, 794
P.2d 380.

This section is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, nor does the statute
encourage arbitrary or discriminatory prosecution. State v. Pierce, 1990-NMSC-049,
110 N.M. 76, 792 P.2d 408; State v. Scott, 1991-NMCA-081, 113 N.M. 525, 828 P.2d
958, cert. quashed, sub nom. Gibson v. State, 113 N.M. 524, 828 P.2d 957 (1992).

Double jeopardy. — Where defendant massaged the child’s nude body, touching the
child’s breasts, buttocks, and vagina, was one continuous course of conduct, and there
was no lapse in time between the times defendant touched the child’s different body
parts and no intervening events, there was one continuous course of conduct that was
not capable of being split into three charges merely because defendant touched three
different body parts and defendant’s conviction for three counts of criminal sexual
contact of a minor violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. State v. Ervin, 2008-NMCA-
016, 143 N.M. 493, 177 P.3d 1067, cert. denied, 2008-NMCERT-001, 143 N.M. 398,
176 P.3d 1130.

Where defendant attempted to move child's hand toward his groin area twice within a
few minutes, one of his two convictions for attempted third degree criminal sexual
contact of a minor violated double jeopardy. State v. Segura, 2002-NMCA-044, 132
N.M. 114, 45 P.3d 54, cert. denied, 132 N.M. 193, 46 P.3d 100.

Specific intent not element. — The legislature did not intend to adopt a requirement of
specific sexual intent as an element of this section. State v. Pierce, 1990-NMSC-049,
110 N.M. 76, 792 P.2d 408.

Unlawfulness as element. — By defining criminal sexual contact of a minor as
"unlawfully and intentionally" touching a child's intimate parts, the legislature properly
intended that the state must establish the unlawfulness of the touching as a distinct
element of the offense. State v. Osborne, 1991-NMSC-032, 111 N.M. 654, 808 P.2d
624.

Lack of consent is not an element of criminal sexual contact of a minor. — Where
defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor for forcibly
touching the breast of a sixteen-year-old female victim, and where the evidence at trial
established that defendant, a thirty-three year old man, who appeared intoxicated,
entered a candy shop where the victim was working alone, that defendant lingered and
made lewd comments of a sexual nature to the victim, that defendant repeatedly asked
the victim to give him a hug, that when the victim instead extended her hand across the
counter in an attempt to shake the defendant's hand, defendant took her hand and
forcibly pulled her into a hug, and that as defendant released the victim from the hug, he
brushed his hand over her chest and squeezed her breast, and where defendant
claimed that fundamental error occurred because of the failure to instruct the jury on
lack of consent, claiming that surveillance video footage of his encounter with the victim
was evidence of the victim's consent to his actions, fundamental error did not occur,
because lack of consent is not an element of criminal sexual contact of a minor.
Consent of a child between the ages of thirteen and sixteen to engage in sexual contact
is irrelevant where force occurred. State v. Begaye, 2022-NMCA-012, cert. denied.

Contributing to delinquency of a minor is separate offense. — The legislature
intended for the crimes of criminal sexual contact of a minor and contributing to the
delinquency of a minor to be separate crimes, punishable separately even when unitary
conduct violates both statutes. Therefore, convictions under both statutes do not violate
double jeopardy principles. State v. Trevino, 1993-NMSC-067, 116 N.M. 528, 865 P.2d
1172.

Merger of attempted criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact of
minor from unitary conduct. — Despite the state’s contention that the conduct
underlying the offenses charged against the defendant was not unitary, in that the
defendant’s action of lying on the victim constituted criminal sexual contact of a minor
and his action of preparing to "hump" her constituted attempted criminal sexual
penetration of a minor, the actions can only reasonably be deemed to constitute unitary
conduct; the contact and attempted penetration all took place within the same short
space of time, with no physical separation between the illegal acts. State v. Mora, 2003-
NMCA-072, 133 N.M. 746, 69 P.3d 256, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 727, 69 P.3d 237.

Criminal sexual contact of minor is not lesser included offense of attempted
criminal sexual penetration. — For purposes of double jeopardy, the offenses of
criminal sexual contact of a minor and attempted criminal sexual penetration of a minor
cannot be characterized as lesser included and greater inclusive crimes because they
each contain different elements and stand independently in relation to one another.
State v. Mora, 2003-NMCA-072, 133 N.M. 746, 69 P.3d 256, cert. denied, 133 N.M.
727, 69 P.3d 237.

Sufficiency of notice of crime charged. — Where a child was charged with unlawfully
and intentionally touching or applying force to the intimate parts of his sister, and the
charging document contained not only a time frame, but the name of the alleged victim,
the child was given adequate notice to enable him to prepare a defense and to assure
that any conviction or acquittal would be res judicata against a subsequent prosecution
for the same offense. State v. Benny E., 1990-NMCA-052, 110 N.M. 237, 794 P.2d 380.

Statements part of res gestae. — In prosecution for sexual assault upon four year old
female child, statements made by victim within 45 minutes after awaking, crying and
scared, upon being discovered in bed with defendant, could be seen as
contemporaneous with shocked condition and as spontaneous utterances, and were
properly admitted under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. State v. Apodaca,
1969-NMCA-038, 80 N.M. 244, 453 P.2d 764.

Similar prior acts. — Admission into evidence of prior sexual acts between defendant
and prosecuting witness similar to those charged in conviction for indecent handling and
touching of girl under age of 16 was not an abuse of trial court's discretion as a matter
of law. State v. Minns, 1969-NMCA-035, 80 N.M. 269, 454 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 80
N.M. 234, 453 P.2d 597.

In a prosecution for criminal sexual contact with a minor, the admission of evidence of
prior "bad" acts, including uncharged sexual battery dating back to the victim's early
childhood, was not error. The evidence corroborated the victim's testimony and placed
the charged acts in context. The evidence of defendant's treatment of the victim was
relevant to the issue of credibility and not merely offered to show defendant's character
and propensity to commit the crime. State v. Landers, 1992-NMCA-131, 115 N.M. 514,
853 P.2d 1270, overruled on other grounds by State v. Kerby, 2005-NMCA-106, 138
N.M. 232, 118 P.3d 740.

Physical evidence is not required to support a conviction under this section. State v.
Landers, 1992-NMCA-131, 115 N.M. 514, 853 P.2d 1270, cert. quashed, 115 N.M. 535,
854 P.2d 362, overruled on other grounds by State v. Kerby, 2005-NMCA-106, 138
N.M. 232, 118 P.3d 740.

Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to find accused guilty under
this section beyond a reasonable doubt. Mora v. Williams, 111 Fed. Appx. 537 (10th Cir.
2004).

Child's testimony sufficient. — The uncorroborated testimony of a minor child
competent to testify, unless there be something inherently improbable in it, is deemed
substantial evidence and sufficient to uphold a conviction. State v. Trujillo, 1955-NMSC-
094, 60 N.M. 277, 291 P.2d 315.

Corroboration was not essential to conviction in a prosecution for indecent handling
and touching of a minor under 18 years of age. State v. Trujillo, 1955-NMSC-094, 60
N.M. 277, 291 P.2d 315.

Use of a position of authority to coerce sexual contact may be proven inferentially
and although the position of employer in and of itself does not necessarily establish the
use of that position as coercion, where there exists sufficient connection between the
employment and the sexual contact, the jury can appropriately infer that the employer
used coercion. State v. Trevino, 1991-NMCA-085, 113 N.M. 804, 833 P.2d 1170, aff'd
sub nom. State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006, 113 N.M. 780, 833 P.2d 1146.

Coercion by a person in a position of authority is not negated where victim
resists the defendant's attempts to force sexual contact. — Where defendant was
found guilty of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor by a person in a position
of authority, where the evidence at trial established that defendant grabbed his thirteen-
year-old niece's clothed buttocks while she walked past him, and later placed his hand
directly on the "outer lip" of her genital area while she was sleeping, and where
defendant argued that the child was not coerced to submit to sexual contact because
she immediately resisted his attempts to force sexual contact, there was sufficient
evidence for a jury to infer defendant was in a position of authority over the child and
used that authority to coerce the child to submit to sexual contact because of the nature
of the relationship between defendant and the child and the child's testimony that she
felt pressure not to interfere with the family dynamics given the close relationship
between her family and her uncle's family. Though a child's resistance may have some
relevance to the element of coercion, the primary focus of the analysis should be on the
perpetrator's actions, not the victim's. State v. Arvizo, 2018-NMSC-026, rev'g No.
33,697, mem. op. (N.M. Ct. App. June 28, 2016) (non-precedential).

Instruction on position of authority. — The defendant’s requested jury instruction
that "[t]he fact the defendant was in a position of authority does not alone establish that
he used that authority to coerce sexual contact" was not a correct statement of the law
because coercion for the purposes of this section occurs when a defendant occupies a
position which enables that person to exercise undue influence over the victim and that
influence is the means of compelling submission to the contact. State v. Gardner, 2003-
NMCA-107, 134 N.M. 294, 76 P.3d 47, cert. denied, 134 N.M. 179, 74 P.3d 1071.

Defendant’s motivation irrelevant. — A defendant who unlawfully and intentionally
touches an intimate part of a minor’s body is guilty of criminal sexual contact of a minor,
regardless of whether the defendant was motivated by a desire to obtain sexual
gratification or by some other desire. State v. Gardner, 2003-NMCA-107, 134 N.M. 294,
76 P.3d 47, cert. denied, 134 N.M. 179, 74 P.3d 1071.

Implicit waiver of right to confrontation. — Where defendant at trial did not file a
response to the state's motion for a videotaped deposition, nor did he object at the time
of the taking of the deposition or at the time that the district court admitted the
deposition tape as evidence, but, to the contrary, defendant relied on both the
deposition tape and the interview tape in his opening and closing arguments,
defendant's actions indicate that he implicitly waived his right to face-to-face
confrontation by conduct. State v. Herrera, 2004-NMCA-015, 135 N.M. 79, 84 P.3d 696,
cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-001, 135 N.M. 160, 85 P.3d 802.

On appeal from a prosecution for criminal sexual contact of a minor, where defendant
argued that the district court was constitutionally required to make specific findings
justifying its substitution of videotaped testimony for face-to-face confrontation, even
though defendant never objected to the substitution, defendant waived his Confrontation
Clause claim by failing to raise the confrontation issue at trial and there is no
fundamental error. State v. Herrera, 2004-NMCA-015, 135 N.M. 79, 84 P.3d 696, cert.
denied, 2004-NMCERT-001, 135 N.M. 160, 85 P.3d 802.

State's evidence was adequate to support trial court's findings justifying the need
for a video-taped deposition of the child victim. — Where defendant was convicted
of one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor, and where, prior to trial, the state
filed a motion to take a videotaped deposition of the child victim pursuant to 5-504(A)
NMRA, arguing that the special procedure was necessary to prevent the child from
suffering unreasonable and unnecessary mental or emotional harm, and where, at a
pretrial hearing on the 5-504(A) NMRA motion, the state presented the sworn testimony
of a licensed professional clinical counselor who offered unrebutted expert opinions that
the child would be traumatized by testifying both in court and in defendant's physical
presence, and where, despite defendant's objections to the expert testimony as
speculative and in violation defendant's right to confrontation, the district weighed
defendant's confrontation rights against the potential for unreasonable and unnecessary
emotional harm to the child and granted the state's 5-504(A) NMRA motion and granted
the state's separate request that defendant not be present in the room while the child
was being deposed, the trial court's order to take the child's deposition under 5-504(A)
NMRA was supported by the evidence where the trial court found that, based on expert
testimony, requiring the child to testify in court would cause her mental or emotional
harm, exacerbate existing somatic symptoms, lead to other negative changes in her
behavior, and that the harm would be unreasonable under the circumstances. State v.
Berry, 2025-NMCA-009, cert. denied.
Defendant failed to preserve claims that the trial court's order excluding
defendant from the State's Rule 5-504(A) deposition and admitting the deposition
at trial was erroneous. — Where defendant was convicted of one count of criminal
sexual contact of a minor, and where, prior to trial, the state filed a motion to take a
videotaped deposition of the child victim pursuant to 5-504(A) NMRA, arguing that the
special procedure was necessary to prevent the child from suffering unreasonable and
unnecessary mental or emotional harm, and where, at a pretrial hearing on the 5-504(A)
NMRA motion, the state presented the sworn testimony of a licensed professional
clinical counselor who offered unrebutted expert opinions that the child would be
traumatized by testifying both in court and in defendant's physical presence, and where,
despite defendant's objections to the expert testimony as speculative and in violation of
defendant's right to confrontation, the district weighed defendant's confrontation rights
against the potential for unreasonable and unnecessary emotional harm to the child and
granted the state's 5-504(A) NMRA motion and granted the state's separate request
that defendant not be present in the room while the child was being deposed,
defendant's claims that his exclusion from the deposition and the admission of the
deposition at trial in lieu of in-court testimony were erroneous were not preserved where
defendant failed to object to his exclusion from the child's videotaped deposition and
failed to object when the child's videotaped deposition was played at defendant's bench
trial. State v. Berry, 2025-NMCA-009, cert. denied.

Instruction on time limitation properly refused. — Where time limitation was not an
essential element of the offenses of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and
criminal sexual contact of a minor, no error was committed by the court's failure to
instruct the jury on time limitations in connection with the charges at issue. State v.
Cawley, 1990-NMSC-088, 110 N.M. 705, 799 P.2d 574.

Instruction on intoxication improperly refused. — Where trial court by instruction
fixed specific intent as an essential ingredient of offense charged, sexual assault of
female under the age of 16, refusal to instruct on defense of intoxication was reversible
error. State v. Rayos, 1967-NMSC-008, 77 N.M. 204, 420 P.2d 314.

No instruction on touchings' lawfulness absent evidence. — Although the
defendant contended that all touching of the victim was colorably lawful, there was no
evidence from which the jury could infer that the particular touchings that the state
sought to prove were lawful. The only way to view the defendant's evidence was that he
did not touch the victim whatsoever in the manner the state alleged and that all of his
other touchings were lawful. Because the defendant did not allege that the particular
touchings forming the basis for the charges were lawful, the issue of the lawfulness of
those touchings was not at issue, and the trial court's failure to give a lawfulness
instuction was not fundamental error. State v. Landers, 1992-NMCA-131, 115 N.M. 514,
853 P.2d 1270, cert. quashed, 115 N.M. 535, 854 P.2d 362, overruled on other grounds
by State v. Kerby, 2005-NMCA-106, 138 N.M. 232, 118 P.3d 740.

Attempt. — Reversal of defendant's convictions under this section was required
because the attempt aspect of the charge needed to be connected with the underlying
crime in a manner that made it clear to the jury that the initiatory crime of attempt
applied to all elements of the underlying crime. State v. Segura, 2002-NMCA-044, 132
N.M. 114, 45 P.3d 54, cert. denied, 132 N.M. 193, 46 P.3d 100.

Sufficient evidence of criminal sexual contact. — Where defendant was charged
with criminal sexual contact of a minor and where the minor child, at trial, testified that
defendant unzipped her pajamas and positioned his hand in the her underwear and
touched the skin underneath her underwear in a rubbing motion, a jury could reasonably
believe that defendant touched or applied force to the child’s unclothed groin area, and
thus there was sufficient evidence of criminal sexual contact of a minor. State v. Pitner,
2016-NMCA-102, cert. denied.

Evidence sufficient to support conviction. — Father's conviction on two counts of
criminal sexual contact of a minor was supported by substantial evidence, including the
testimony of the child and a therapist who interviewed the child. State v. Newman,
1989-NMCA-086, 109 N.M. 263, 784 P.2d 1006, cert. denied, 109 N.M. 262, 784 P.2d
1005.

Evidence consisting of the testimony of the victim's counselor and the victim herself was
sufficient to support convictions of criminal sexual contact with a minor and criminal
sexual penetration of a minor. State v. Ortiz-Burciaga, 1999-NMCA-146, 128 N.M. 382,
993 P.2d 96, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d 823.

Evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant coerced a 16-year old boy to
submit to sexual contact by using his position as employer, where defendant, who had
hired the boy to help repair appliances, closed the doors and windows when the boy
indicated a desire to leave after defendant made sexual advances. State v. Corbin,
1991-NMCA-021, 111 N.M. 707, 809 P.2d 57, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 720, 809 P.2d
634.

Jury could infer coercion resulted from the employment relationship. First, the sexual
contact took place on a job site owned by defendant, who had sole supervisory control
not only over the premises but also over the victim. Second, defendant assigned victim
to a small ticket booth where all of the incidents of sexual contact took place. State v.
Trevino, 1991-NMCA-085, 113 N.M. 804, 833 P.2d 1170, aff'd sub nom. State v.
Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006, 113 N.M. 780, 833 P.2d 1146.

Where four students testified that the defendant, an assistant principal, had on various
occasions while at school touched their breasts and/or buttocks, the testimony was
sufficient for a reasonable mind to conclude that the unlawful contact was at least in part
a result of the defendant’s position of authority. State v. Gardner, 2003-NMCA-107, 134
N.M. 294, 76 P.3d 47, cert. denied, 134 N.M. 179, 74 P.3d 1071.

Sufficient evidence of criminal sexual contact of a minor for purposes of retrial.
— Where defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual penetration of a
minor and twenty-one counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor, and where
defendant's convictions were overturned based on the state's violation of defendant's
constitutional right against self-incrimination, there was sufficient evidence to support
each of defendant's convictions for purposes of retrial where, at trial, the state
presented evidence from the child victim that defendant committed multiple instances of
criminal sexual contact and at least one instance of criminal sexual penetration over a
four-month period and defendant's admission that he had put the child's penis in his
mouth at least once and had touched the child's penis between twenty and thirty times.
State v. Atencio, 2021-NMCA-061, aff'd in part and rev'd in part by 2024-NMSC-022.

Disjunctive in instruction not error. — It was not error for the district court to instruct
the jury that in order to convict defendant of criminal sexual contact of a minor under the
age of 13, it must conclude that defendant touched or applied force either to the vagina
or breast of the victim, as the essential element of the crime is touching an intimate part
of the child. State v. Nichols, 2006-NMCA-017, 139 N.M. 72, 128 P.3d 500.

Special probation condition did not terminate parental rights. — Where defendant
pleaded guilty to eight counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the fourth degree,
the charges stemming from a series of incidents that occurred over the course of
several months between defendant and one of his adopted daughters, and after the
sentencing hearing, the district court imposed nine conditions of probation, with one
condition prohibiting defendant from having direct or indirect contact with all children
under the age of 18, including the victim of his crimes, absent a court order, the special
condition did not amount to a "de facto" termination of parental rights, necessitating
jurisdiction within the children's court. State v. Garcia, 2005-NMCA-065, 137 N.M. 597,
113 P.3d 867.

Law reviews. — For symposium, "The Impact of the Equal Rights Amendment on the
New Mexico Criminal Code," see 3 N.M.L. Rev. 106 (1973).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Remoteness in time of other similar
offenses committed by accused as affecting admissibility of evidence thereof in
prosecution for sex offense, 88 A.L.R.3d 8.

Modern status of admissibility, in statutory rape prosecution, of complainant's prior
sexual acts or general reputation for unchastity, 90 A.L.R.3d 1286.

Validity and construction of statute defining crime of rape to include activity traditionally
punishable as sodomy or the like, 3 A.L.R.4th 1009.

Walking cane as deadly or dangerous weapon for purposes of statutes aggravating
offenses such as assault and robbery, 8 A.L.R.4th 842.

Parts of the human body, other than feet, as deadly or dangerous weapons for
purposes of statutes aggravating offenses such as assault and robbery, 8 A.L.R.4th
1268.
Constitutionality, with respect to accused's rights to information or confrontation, of
statute according confidentiality to sex crime victim's communications to sexual
counselor, 43 A.L.R.4th 395.

Sexual child abuser's civil liability to child's parent, 54 A.L.R.4th 93.

Liability of church or religious society for sexual misconduct of clergy, 5 A.L.R.5th 530.

6A C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 123.