State v. Sarabia

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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. 31,155 5 FRANCISCO DORADO SARABIA, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 8 Jane Shuler-Gray, District Judge 9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 Ralph E. Trujillo, Assistant Attorney General 12 Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 Law Office of Craig C. Kling 15 Craig C. Kling 16 San Diego, CA 17 for Appellant 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 HANISEE, Judge. 3 {1} Defendant was charged in an amended criminal information with ten counts 4 related to child abuse, criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), and criminal sexual 5 penetration (CSP) perpetrated against his daughter (Victim). A jury found Defendant 6 guilty of all charges, and the district court sentenced him to serve fifteen years in the 7 custody of the New Mexico Corrections Department. Defendant appeals his 8 conviction and sentence, asserting nine separate points of error. The State agrees with 9 several of Defendant’s legal arguments and concedes the need for modification to the 10 judgment and sentence. Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are 11 familiar with the background of this case, we discuss pertinent facts and procedural 12 history as needed within our legal analysis. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and 13 remand for entry of judgment and resentencing consistent with our holding today. 14 I. The District Court Did Not Err in Denying the Admission of a Videotaped 15 Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony 16 {2} The parties agree that, initially, the State charged Defendant with crimes related 17 to the administration of drugs to Victim.1 They maintain that Victim had alleged that [1] 17 We cannot locate in the record, nor have the parties cited to or provided, 18 documentation regarding such a charge. Such an allegation is neither lodged in the [2] 1 Defendant had given her pills on several occasions which made her sleep, and when 2 she awoke, her clothing had been disheveled or missing. The State sent a sample of 3 Victim’s hair to a laboratory to be tested for the presence of drugs. The test results 4 were negative. The State later learned that it had asked the laboratory to perform an 5 incorrect hair follicle test and ultimately declined to prosecute charges related to the 6 administration of drugs to Victim. 7 {3} Prior to trial, Defendant sought discovery regarding the follicular testing of 8 Victim’s hair and an opportunity to depose the custodian of records and the technician 9 responsible for the testing. Regarding the deposition request, the motion stated that 10 the “testimony of the technician and/or custodian of record[s] for [the laboratory] is 11 required for admission of the evidence and the costs of subpoenaing the witnesses are 12 prohibitive to Defendant.” Defendant’s motion, however, did not contain any 13 expression of intent to use the deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony at trial. 14 After his motion was granted, Defendant filed a “Notice of Video Deposition” and 15 video deposed Dr. Lee M. Blum, an employee of the laboratory. 17 original nor amended criminal information. Thus, we rely solely on statements the 18 parties presented to the district court during a pre-trial hearing as to the factual 18 background related to this point of appeal. See State v. Jim, 1988-NMCA-092 , ¶ 3, [19] 107 N.M. 779 , 765 P.2d 195 (“It is [a] defendant’s burden to bring up a record 20 sufficient for review of the issues he raises on appeal.”). [3] 1 {4} Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent the admission 2 of evidence related to Victim’s previous assertion of having been drugged by 3 Defendant, a charge not pursued by the State. Defendant responded that he sought 4 admission of evidence regarding the laboratory testing in order to impeach Victim’s 5 credibility on the basis that the hair test results did not support Victim’s initial 6 allegation that Defendant drugged her. Specifically, Defendant contended that Dr. 7 Blum’s testimony would establish the absence of any specific drug that Victim had 8 alleged had been administered to her by Defendant. In reply, the State informed the 9 court it had sought the wrong laboratory test on Victim’s hair. 10 {5} Yet Dr. Blum was not present for trial, and when the court sought information 11 regarding his whereabouts, defense counsel responded that he had “taken his 12 deposition pursuant to court order.” The State maintained that Defendant had never 13 requested nor had the State stipulated to the admission of the video deposition into 14 evidence. Defendant pointed to his ensuing “Notice of Video Deposition,” which 15 stated that this “deposition may be used at trial pursuant to Rule 1-032 [NMRA] of the 16 Rules of Civil Procedure.” 17 {6} Ultimately, the district court granted the State’s motion in limine, ordered that 18 neither party was permitted to discuss issues related to the administration of drugs to 19 Victim, and excluded the video deposition. Defendant renewed his objection, stating [4] 1 that Dr. Blum’s testimony was necessary to impeach Victim because “that’s the 2 fundamental of a defense; that’s the fundamental of the right of confrontation and the 3 right of effective cross-examination.” The court nonetheless adhered to its ruling. 4 {7} Defendant contends that his conviction should be overturned because the 5 district court abused its discretion by denying the admission of Dr. Blum’s videotaped 6 deposition. Defendant asserts that his due process rights were violated because the 7 exclusion of the video deposition on the day of trial denied him an essential witness 8 and an opportunity to determine another way to introduce the testimony. 9 {8} “A criminal defendant has a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause 10 of the United States Constitution to present his own witnesses to establish a defense.” 11 State v. Rosales, 2004-NMSC-022, ¶ 7 , 136 N.M. 25 , 94 P.3d 768 (internal quotation 12 marks and citation omitted). However, this right is not absolute or unlimited as it 13 “may at times bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial 14 process.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Given this limitation, our 15 Supreme Court has held that a defendant’s evidence is inadmissible unless it satisfies 16 relevancy and hearsay rules. Id. ¶ 8. Relevant evidence is such evidence that has “any 17 tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence, 18 and . . . the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Rule 11-401 NMRA. [5] 1 {9} At the outset, we note that Defendant does not maintain on appeal that Dr. 2 Blum’s testimony was relevant to impeaching Victim’s credibility. Rather, he solely 3 argues that the district court erred in denying the use of the videotaped deposition in 4 lieu of live testimony when Defendant made clear his intent to the State and district 5 court. Our review of the record reveals that in his motion to depose, Defendant did not 6 indicate he was seeking to use the deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony, but 7 instead that he sought the deposition based upon limited financial resources and on the 8 basis that the laboratory “is not allowed to talk to anyone but the [police department].” 9 The motion contained no statement regarding Defendant’s intent to use the deposition 10 in lieu of live testimony. Defendant’s ensuing “Notice of Video Deposition” 11 perfunctorily inserted that the “deposition may be used at trial pursuant to Rule 1-032 12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.” 13 {10} Mere reference to a possible use at trial in a subsequent notice, however, does 14 not establish the admissibility of the deposition in lieu of live testimony. Nor does 15 Defendant’s mere assertion that he was “sandbagged right before trial with the denial 16 of admissibility of his videotaped deposition in lieu of live testimony[,]” and this 17 violated his right to present his own witness to establish his defense. See State v. 18 Fuentes, 2010-NMCA-027, ¶ 29 , 147 N.M. 761 , 228 P.3d 1181 (declining to review 19 an undeveloped argument that would require conjecture about the party’s argument). [6] 1 {11} As we have stated, this right to present one’s own witnesses to establish a 2 defense is not absolute, and the admissibility of evidence is subject to its relevance. 3 See Rosales, 2004-NMSC-022, ¶¶ 6-7 . Not only does Defendant not provide us with 4 any argument on the issue of impeaching Victim with the deposition, but neither did 5 he include Dr. Blum’s deposition in the record proper for our review. See State v. Jim, [6] 1988-NMCA-092 , ¶ 3 (“It is [the] defendant’s burden to bring up a record sufficient 7 for review of the issues . . . raise[d] on appeal.”); State v. Druktenis, [8] 2004-NMCA-032, ¶ 44 , 135 N.M. 223 , 86 P.3d 1050 (“It is [the d]efendant’s 9 obligation to provide this Court with a sufficient record proper.”). “Where there is a 10 doubtful or deficient record, every presumption must be indulged by the reviewing 11 court in favor of the correctness and regularity of the [district] court’s judgment.” 12 State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 53 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation 13 marks and citation omitted). Because we are unable to review the content of the 14 deposition in order to determine whether the district court abused its discretion, and 15 because we lack argument from Defendant, we have no basis to reverse the district 16 court’s ruling and, therefore, affirm its decision to exclude the admission of the 17 deposition. 18 II. The District Court Did Not Err in Limiting Defendant’s Cross19 Examination of Victim to the Charged Offenses [7] 1 {12} Defendant maintains that the district court denied his right to meaningfully 2 cross-examine Victim, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States 3 Constitution, when it prohibited cross-examination of Victim regarding the uncharged 4 offenses. Defendant specifically wished to question Victim regarding allegations that 5 Defendant drugged her generally, and that he did so specifically on Halloween night 6 in 2008. 7 {13} The scope of cross-examination is a matter within the discretion of the district 8 court; however, we review issues pertaining to the violation of the Confrontation 9 Clause de novo. State v. Smith, 2001-NMSC-004, ¶ 19 , 130 N.M. 117 , 19 P.3d 254 . 10 The district court “retains wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is 11 concerned to impose reasonable limits on . . . cross-examination based on concerns 12 about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ 13 safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Id. (omission 14 in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We are not persuaded that 15 the district court abused its discretion or that Defendant’s right of confrontation was 16 violated. 17 {14} Defendant argues that by permitting questioning of Victim only in regard to 18 “charges that [were] pending,” Defendant was denied the opportunity to challenge 19 Victim’s credibility, a strategy “central to [his] defense.” Defendant argues that “any [8] 1 testimony that may have indicated that [Victim] was not being truthful, or at least that 2 she may have been exaggerating the allegations against [Defendant], would be 3 essential evidence for the jury to consider in determining [Defendant’s] guilt.” 4 {15} A defendant’s right to confront, however, is not absolute. Rather, our Supreme 5 Court has held that the “Confrontation Clause merely guarantees an opportunity for 6 effective cross-examination; it does not guarantee that the defense may cross-examine 7 a witness in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” State v. 8 Sanders, 1994-NMSC-043 , ¶ 23, 117 N.M. 452 , 872 P.2d 870 (internal quotation 9 marks and citation omitted). Based on our review of the record, the hair follicle test 10 results do not appear to impeach Victim’s credibility. At trial, the State informed 11 defense counsel and the court that the results were inconclusive as a result of the 12 State’s request for the incorrect test. Tellingly, Defendant concedes this point on 13 appeal. Because the tests were wrongly administered and the results therefore 14 inconclusive, nothing about them provided a clear showing that Victim was untruthful 15 in her allegation. Had the jury been exposed to this testimony, it bore the capacity to 16 mislead or confuse the jury regarding an issue collateral to those they were called 17 upon to resolve. As an uncharged offense, the drug issue was not before the jury based 18 on the counts of the amended criminal information and would have been of highly 19 questionable admissibility in any evidentiary capacity. Cf. Rule 11-404(B)(1) NMRA [9] 1 (“Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s 2 character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance 3 with the character.”); State v. Ruiz, 2007-NMCA-014, ¶ 28 , 141 N.M. 53 , 150 P.3d 4 1003 (discussing Rule 11-404(B), stating “the word ‘other’ connotes crimes, wrongs, 5 or acts that are not the subject of the proceedings . . . uncharged misconduct”). We too 6 conclude that Defendant’s desired line of questioning sought to place at issue an 7 allegation that was uncharged and which, in this instance, could well have resulted in 8 confusion of the issues before the jury. Because such a conclusion is a proper basis for 9 limiting cross-examination, Smith, 2001-NMSC-004, ¶ 19 , we hold the district court 10 did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the line of questioning related to Victim’s 11 allegation of being drugged by Defendant. 12 {16} With regard to the specific event on Halloween night of 2008, Defendant 13 planned to question Victim regarding her claim that he had beaten her while acting out 14 a mock rape scene. Defendant hoped to impeach Victim’s credibility to “show that it’s 15 impossible that [the incident] took place on that date.” The district court expressed 16 concern that the admission of questioning related to this incident might “confuse the 17 jury [as] to something that they are not even considering” and was concerned that the 18 probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The 19 district court then allowed Defendant to question Victim outside the presence of the [10] 1 jury. Afterward, the district court asked about how the defense proposed to impeach 2 Victim. The defense responded that it had two witnesses that would testify that on that 3 Halloween evening, Victim was never alone with Defendant. The judge clarified, “so 4 its their word against her word?” The defense answered affirmatively, and the district 5 court ordered that the inquiry into the events on Halloween night were prohibited. 6 {17} As with the issue of the drug administration, Defendant’s proffered witness 7 testimony failed to establish that Victim was lying. Again, the jury would be put in a 8 position to decide the credibility of both the witnesses and Victim with regard to a 9 matter that was not before it. Cf. Rule 11-404(B); Ruiz, 2007-NMCA-014, ¶ 28 . 10 Moreover, as we have stated, Defendant was not denied the opportunity to cross- 11 examine Victim as to her credibility; the district court merely limited this cross- 12 examination to charged offenses so as not to confuse the jury. See Sanders, 1994- 13 NMSC-043, ¶ 23; Smith, 2001-NMSC-004, ¶ 19 . For these reasons, we determine that 14 the district court did not abuse its discretion, nor was Defendant denied his right of 15 confrontation, and we affirm the rulings of the district court. 16 III. Defendant’s Convictions of CSCM in the Second Degree are Vacated and 17 Remanded for Entry of Judgment and Resentencing for CSCM in the 18 Third Degree 19 {18} Defendant asserts that as to Counts 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10, although charged with 20 CSCM in the second degree, he was actually convicted of third-degree CSCM because [11] 1 the element of “unclothed” was absent from the jury instruction. Unlike CSCM in the 2 third degree, second-degree CSCM requires the additional finding that the defendant 3 engaged in “criminal sexual contact of the unclothed intimate parts of a minor.” 4 NMSA 1978, § 30-9-13(B)(2003) (Emphasis added). Defendant asserts, and the State 5 concedes, that the jury was improperly instructed regarding the elements of CSCM in 6 the second degree because the word “unclothed” was omitted from the jury 7 instruction. “Although the [s]tate concedes this issue, we are not bound to accept the 8 [s]tate’s concession.” State v. Palmer, 1998-NMCA-052, ¶ 12 , 125 N.M. 86 , 957 P.2d 9 71 . In this circumstance, we agree that the omission of the word “unclothed” from the 10 jury instruction requires us to vacate Defendant’s conviction of second-degree CSCM 11 and remand for entry of judgment and resentencing on CSCM in the third degree. 12 {19} Our Supreme Court has held that “appellate courts have the authority to remand 13 a case for entry of judgment on the lesser included offense and resentencing . . . when 14 the evidence does not support the offense for which the defendant was convicted but 15 does support a lesser included offense.” State v. Haynie, 1994-NMSC-001 , ¶ 4, 116 16 N.M. 746 , 867 P.2d 416 . While the application of the “direct-remand” rule is 17 inappropriate where the jury was not instructed on the lesser included offense, State 18 v. Villa, 2004-NMSC-031, ¶ 15 , 136 N.M. 367 , 98 P.3d 1017 , here by omitting the 19 element of “unclothed” from the jury instruction, the jury was effectively instructed [12] 1 on the elements of CSCM in the third degree because the charge is encompassed 2 within the elements for second-degree CSCM. Compare § 30-9-13(B) (2003), with § 3 30-9-13(C) (2003). Accordingly, we remand for entry of judgment and resentencing 4 for CSCM in the third degree as to Counts 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10. 5 {20} Defendant additionally asserts that his sentences for Counts 1 and 2 as second- 6 degree CSCM felonies are illegal and must be reduced to third-degree felonies 7 because at the time the jury convicted him of committing the crimes, the highest 8 degree of CSCM was a third-degree felony.2 Defendant, however, does not dispute the 9 legality of the conviction. Once more, the State agrees with Defendant’s position. 10 Again, while we are not bound by the State’s concession, see Palmer, 1998-NMCA- 11 052, ¶ 12, “[w]e review the legality of a sentence under the de novo standard of 12 review.” State v. Williams, 2006-NMCA-092, ¶ 4 , 140 N.M. 194 , 141 P.3d 538 . 13 {21} Defendant was charged with second-degree CSCM, occurring on or between 14 August 1, 1997 and August 31, 1997, pursuant to Section 30-9-13(B) (2003) in Count 15 1 of the amended criminal information. Defendant was additionally charged with 16 second-degree CSCM occurring on or between August 1, 2003 and May 31, 2006 in 17 Count 2 of the amended criminal information. The jury found Defendant guilty of [2] 17 Having already remanded Count 2 for entry of judgment and resentencing, we 18 need not address it again and solely address Defendant’s argument with regard to 19 Count 1. [13] 1 both counts. At the time the amended criminal information was filed in March of 2 2010, Section 30-9-13(B) (2003) provided for second-, third-, and fourth-degree 3 felonies of CSCM; however, this was the earliest version of the statute that contained 4 an option for CSCM as a second-degree felony. Pursuant to the prior 1991 and 2001 5 versions of the statute, the highest degree of CSCM was a third-degree felony. See 6 Section 30-9-13(A)(1991); Section 30-9-13(A)(2001). The requisite elements for 7 second-degree CSCM under the 2003 version of the statute and third-degree CSCM 8 under the two prior versions of the statute were identical with the exception of the 9 “unclothed” element that was added to enhance a charge to second-degree CSCM. 10 {22} Our Supreme Court has determined that “the law, at the time of the commission 11 of the offense, is controlling.” State v. Lucero, 2007-NMSC-041, ¶ 14 , 142 N.M. 102 , [12] 163 P.3d 489 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The jury found that 13 Count 1 of CSCM occurred “on or between the 1st day of August, 1997 and the 31st 14 day of August, 1997.” Clearly, this crime occurred prior to the Legislature’s February 15 2004 enactment of heightened CSCM liability. As to Count 2, the jury determined that 16 the CSCM occurred “on or between the 1st day of August, 2003 and the 17th day of 17 April, 2005.” Because the legislative enhancement became effective during the 18 window of time in which the crime occurred, it is undeterminable whether the jury 19 concluded the crime occurred prior to February 4, 2004 or sometime thereafter. In [14] 1 such a situation, we resolve any doubts in favor of the defendant. See State v. Ogden, [2] 1994-NMSC-029 , ¶ 25, 118 N.M. 234 , 880 P.2d 845 . Because Count 1 could have 3 been committed prior to the Legislature’s alteration of the statute and because we 4 resolve any doubt about when the crime occurred in favor of Defendant, his 5 conviction and accompanying sentence on Counts 1 and 2 should have been controlled 6 by the 1991 and 2001 version of Section 30-9-13, respectively, where the highest 7 degree of CSCM was a third-degree felony. See Section 30-9-13(A)(1991); Section 8 30-9-13(A)(2001). As the elements needed to establish third-degree liability were each 9 provided to and found to be present by the jury, we remand to the district court for 10 entry of judgment and resentencing for CSCM in the third degree as to Count 1. See 11 Haynie, 1994-NMSC-001 , ¶ 4 (holding that “appellate courts have the authority to 12 remand a case for entry of judgment on the lesser included offense and resentencing 13 rather than retrial when the evidence does not support the offense for which the 14 defendant was convicted but does support a lesser included offense”); see also State 15 v. Garcia, 1978-NMSC-039 , ¶ 7, 91 N.M. 664 , 579 P.2d 790 (“Where an invalid 16 sentence is imposed following a legal conviction, the prisoner is to be directly 17 remanded to the proper court for a valid sentence.”). Accordingly, a remand for entry 18 of judgment and sentencing for CSCM in the third degree as to Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 19 and 10 is proper. [15] 1 IV. The District Court Did Not Err in Sentencing Defendant to Fifteen Years 2 Pursuant to His Conviction on Count 3 of CSP 3 {23} Defendant next asserts that as to Counts 1, 2, and 3, he received illegal 4 sentences. Because we have already remanded Counts 1 and 2 to the district court, we 5 will not address them again here. As to the third count of CSP, however, Defendant 6 asserts that he received an illegal sentence of fifteen years because the penalty for a 7 second-degree felony not resulting in the death of a human being at the time of the 8 charging period was nine years. NMSA 1978, § 31-18-15(A)(3)(2003). “We review 9 the legality of a sentence under the de novo standard of review.” Williams, 2006- 10 NMCA-092, ¶ 4. 11 {24} Pursuant to the amended criminal information, Defendant was charged with 12 having committed CSP, a second-degree felony, “on or between August []1, 2003 and 13 May 31, 2006.” The jury, however, was instructed that in order to find Defendant 14 “guilty of [CSP] of a child,” the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 15 crime occurred “on or between the 17th day of April, 2005 and May 31, 2006.” After 16 the jury found Defendant guilty on this count, the district court issued a judgment and 17 sentence stating that Defendant was convicted of CSP in the second degree, 18 “occurring on or between August []1, 2003 and May 31, 2006, as charged in [c]ount 19 3 of the [a]mended [c]riminal [i]nformation.” Pursuant to that conviction, the court 20 sentenced him to fifteen years. Defendant asserts that he was sentenced illegally [16] 1 because the statute in place at the beginning of the charging period listed in the 2 amended criminal information imposed a penalty of nine years for a second-degree 3 felony that did not result in the death of a human being. 4 {25} As we have stated, “the law, at the time of the commission of the offense, is 5 controlling.” Lucero, 2007-NMSC-041, ¶ 14 . While it is true that for a portion of the 6 charging period asserted in the amended criminal information, the sentence for a 7 second-degree felony not resulting in the death of a human being was nine years. 8 Section 31-18-15(A)(3) (2003). Typically, we would resolve any doubts of when the 9 crime occurred in favor of the defendant. See Ogden, 1994-NMSC-029 , ¶ 25. In this 10 case, however, the jury was not instructed on the broader charging period asserted in 11 the amended criminal information, but instead on the more narrow period of April 17, 12 2005 to May 31, 2006. See State v. Ervin, 2002-NMCA-012, ¶ 13 , 131 N.M. 640 , 41 13 P.3d 908 (“[T]he [s]tate is obligated to make reasonable efforts to narrow the charging 14 time frame.”). Because Defendant did not object to the jury instructions, nor did he 15 argue that the jury instructions were erroneous, they serve as the governing law of the 16 case. See State v. Landers, 1992-NMCA-131 , ¶ 7, 115 N.M. 514 , 853 P.2d 1270 17 (stating that the “jury instructions were the law of the case”) overruled on other 18 grounds by State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 ; Couch v. 19 Astec Indus., Inc., 2002-NMCA-084, ¶ 40 , 132 N.M. 631 , 53 P.3d 398 (“Jury [17] 1 instructions not objected to become the law of the case.”); State v. Armijo, 1999- 2 NMCA-087, ¶ 8, 127 N.M. 594 , 985 P.2d 764 (“While it is true that jury instructions 3 become the law of the case[,] . . . errors in jury instructions do not bar retrial[.]” 4 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Prior to the narrowed time period, 5 the Legislature amended Section 31-18-15(A) (2003) to establish a fifteen-year 6 sentence for a “second[-]degree felony for a sexual offense against a child.” Section 7 31-18-15(A)(3)(2003) (listing the date of effectuation as February 3, 2004). Thus, 8 because Defendant was convicted of CSP of a child sometime on or between April 17, 9 2005 and May 31, 2006, the controlling statute as to Count 3 was the February 3, 2004 10 amendment of Section 31-18-15(A)(3) (2003). 11 {26} We do note the inconsistency between the charging period in the Count 3 jury 12 instructions and the judgment and sentence issued by the district court. Although the 13 jury instructions referenced the narrowed time period, the judgment and sentence 14 reflected the charging period contained in the amended criminal information. Because 15 jury instructions serve as the law governing the case, Landers, 1992-NMCA-131 , ¶ 6, 16 the broader time period indicated in the judgment and sentence constitutes a clerical 17 error on the part of the district court. See State v. Ross, 1983-NMCA-065 , ¶ 17, 100 18 N.M. 48 , 665 P.2d 310 (stating that oversights or omissions in judgments or orders 19 constitute clerical errors). “Clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, arising from [18] 1 oversight or omission are not deemed jurisdictional, and may be corrected by the court 2 at any time . . . . On remand, correction of the clerical misreference is proper.” Id. 3 Because Defendant does not dispute the validity of the charge, conviction, or sentence 4 as a second-degree felony, and solely disputes the sentence imposed for the second- 5 degree felony, we affirm the fifteen-year sentence and remand to the district court with 6 instructions that it correct the judgment and sentence to reflect the date range within 7 which the jury determined the offense to have been committed pursuant to the court’s 8 instructions. 9 V. The Use of a Prior Jury Instruction as to Count 7 of CSP Did Not Amount 10 to Reversible Error 11 {27} Defendant was charged with second-degree CSP “by the use of force or 12 coercion on a child thirteen to eighteen years of age[,]” occurring on or between 13 August 1, 2007 and May 31, 2008, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-9- 14 11(E)(1)(2007). Section 30-9-11(E)(1)(2007) defines second-degree CSP on a child 15 thirteen to eighteen years of age as “criminal sexual penetration perpetrated . . . by the 16 use of force or coercion.” The jury, however, was not instructed on this version of the 17 statute, but instead on a prior version that defined second-degree CSP as “criminal 18 sexual penetration perpetrated . . . on a child thirteen to eighteen years of age when 19 the perpetrator is in a position of authority over the child and uses this authority to 20 coerce the child to submit[.]” Section 30-9-11(D)(1)(2003). Pursuant to this [19] 1 instruction, the jury found Defendant guilty. On appeal, Defendant asserts that he 2 received an illegal sentence as to Count 7 because “position of authority” was not an 3 element of CSP when the jury found the crime was committed. 4 {28} Defendant is correct that at the time the jury found that Defendant committed 5 CSP, on or between August 1, 2007 and May 31, 2008, the “position of authority” 6 element was not required for a conviction of second-degree CSP. In July 2007, prior 7 to the earliest date that the jury could have found Defendant committed CSP, the 8 Legislature enacted a change to Section 30-9-11 wherein second-degree CSP on a 9 child no longer required that the perpetrator be in a “position of authority over [that 10 child] and use[ that] authority to coerce the child to submit.” Compare Section 30-9- 11 11(D)(1)(2003) with Section 30-9-11(E)(1)(2007). Instead, at the time of the 12 commission of the crime, second-degree CSP of a child thirteen to eighteen years of 13 age consisted of “all criminal sexual penetration perpetrated . . . by the use of force 14 or coercion.” Section 30-9-11(E)(1)(2007). 15 {29} Because “the law, at the time of the commission of the offense, is controlling,” 16 Lucero, 2007-NMSC-041, ¶ 14 , the 2007 version of the statute, effective July 1, 2007, 17 should have been presented to the jury. However, contrary to Defendant’s argument, 18 we do not determine that the use of the inclusion of the “position of authority” element 19 resulted in an illegal conviction. It is established that a defendant has the fundamental [20] 1 right “to have the jury determine whether each element of the charged offense has 2 been proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt[,]” and it is the “language of a 3 statute [that] determines the essential elements of an offense.” State v. Cabezuela, [4] 2011-NMSC-041, ¶¶ 38-39 , 150 N.M. 654 , 265 P.3d 705 (internal quotation marks 5 and citations omitted). Our Supreme Court has held that “[n]oncompliance with the 6 uniform jury instructions in criminal cases is reversible error if the failure eliminates 7 an essential element of the crime in the instruction or if the defendant is prejudiced. 8 Further, there may be fundamental error if the instruction given differs materially from 9 the required instruction.” Jackson v. State, 1983-NMSC-098 , ¶ 5, 100 N.M. 487 , 672 10 P.2d 660 (citation omitted). 11 {30} The 2007 version of the statute that was controlling at the time the crime was 12 committed requires three essential elements for the commission of second-degree 13 CSP: (1) penetration, (2) “the use of force or coercion,” (3) “on a child thirteen to 14 eighteen years of age[.]” Section 30-9-11(E)(1)(2007). The Count 7 instruction 15 provided to the jury stated that in order to find Defendant guilty of Count 7, the State 16 must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following elements of the crime: 17 1. [D]efendant caused the insertion, to any extent, of the defendant’s 18 finger into the anus of [Victim]; 19 2. [Victim] was at least 13 but less than 18 years old; [21] 1 3. [D]efendant is a parent, a person who by reason of the defendant’s 2 relationship to [Victim] was able to exercise undue influence over 3 [Victim] and used this authority to coerce [Victim] to submit to 4 sexual contact; 5 4. [D]efendant’s act was unlawful; 6 5. This happened in New Mexico on or between the 1st day of 7 August, 2007 and the 31st day of May, 2008. 8 (Emphasis added). 9 {31} Accordingly, notwithstanding the inclusion of the additional “position of 10 authority” element, each of the three essential elements necessary to convict 11 Defendant was under Section 30-9-11(E)(1)(2007) was contained in the jury 12 instructions. In finding Defendant guilty on Count 7 pursuant to this jury instruction, 13 not only did the jury find that Defendant penetrated Victim; Victim was a child of 14 thirteen to eighteen years of age; Defendant coerced Victim; but it also found that 15 Defendant was in a position of authority over Victim. Although Defendant moved to 16 have Count 7 dismissed at the conclusion of the trial, we cannot find in the record, nor 17 does he cite to any portion of the record, showing that he proffered a substitute jury 18 instruction to the court. “The responsibility for correct instruction rests upon counsel 19 for both the [s]tate and the defendant. Neither the [s]tate nor the defendant tendered 20 the correct instructions to the court.” Jackson, 1983-NMSC-098 , ¶ 6. Because the jury 21 was instructed on all of the essential elements required for a conviction of the version [22] 1 of second-degree CSP in effect at the time the crime was committed, we determine the 2 use of the jury instruction for the 2004 version of the statute did not amount to 3 reversible error. See id. (holding that the use of the incorrect instruction was 4 fundamental and reversible error “because [the instruction did] not contain necessary 5 elements of the crime not covered in other instructions”) (emphasis added). As such, 6 we affirm Defendant’s conviction and sentence as to Count 7. 7 VI. Defendant was not Denied his Right to a Fair Trial When the District 8 Court Judge Declined to Recuse Herself 9 {32} Defendant next claims that he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury 10 because the district court judge previously made factual findings in a related CYFD 11 case and failed to recuse herself following his motion requesting her recusal. 12 Defendant filed a motion requesting that the district court judge “recuse herself from 13 future proceedings.” During the hearing on the motion, counsel for Defendant argued 14 that the judge should recuse herself due to her “familiarity with the CYFD [case] and 15 the factual findings that [she] made.” Counsel for Defendant further expressed 16 concern about the appearance of impropriety and the concern that her impartiality may 17 be reasonably questioned. The district judge responded by stating: 18 I don’t have any personal knowledge about this case. I have none. Any 19 knowledge that I have about this case comes before me in a hearing 20 . . . . I don’t think there’s any appearance of impropriety in this case . . . . 21 Furthermore, as this case goes to trial, I will not be the finder of fact as 22 you well know. The jury will be. [23] 1 She subsequently denied the motion. 2 {33} “We review the denial of a motion to recuse for an abuse of discretion.” State 3 v. Trujillo, 2009-NMCA-128, ¶ 9 , 147 N.M. 334 , 222 P.3d 1040 . Our Supreme Court 4 has held that “a state cannot deprive any individual of personal or property rights 5 except after a hearing before a fair and impartial tribunal.” Reid v. N.M. Bd. of 6 Exam’rs of Optometry, 1979-NMSC-005 , ¶ 6, 92 N.M. 414 , 589 P.2d 198 . “[A] fair 7 and impartial tribunal requires that the trier of fact be disinterested and free from any 8 form of bias or predisposition regarding the outcome of the case.” Purpura v. 9 Purpura, 1993-NMCA-001 , ¶ 14, 115 N.M. 80 , 847 P.2d 314 . The decision to recuse 10 lies in the discretion of the district court judge and is only required when that judge 11 “has become so embroiled in the controversy that he or she cannot fairly and 12 objectively hear the case.” Trujillo, 2009-NMCA-128, ¶ 11 (alterations, internal 13 quotation marks, and citation omitted). In order to mandate a recusal, the asserted bias 14 or appearance of bias cannot be based on mere speculation, and the bias “must arise 15 from a personal, extra-judicial source, not a judicial source.” Purpura, 1993-NMCA- 16 001, ¶ 17; see Trujillo, 2009-NMCA-128, ¶ 11 . 17 {34} We see no basis on which to conclude that Judge Shuler-Gray erred in failing 18 to recuse herself. The judge had no knowledge of this case outside of what she may 19 have garnered during the related CYFD case in which she also served in her judicial [24] 1 capacity. She explicitly stated that she had no “personal knowledge about this case.” 2 On the record before us, whatever information the district court may have had did not 3 arise from a “personal, extra-judicial source,” as is required for recusal under our 4 caselaw. Purpura, 1993-NMCA-001 , ¶ 17; see id. (holding that bias based on a 5 district court judge’s previous court proceedings with a party do not constitute a 6 personal, extra-judicial source). “To the extent that an appearance of impropriety 7 might be considered, nothing [the d]efendant has shown indicates an appearance of 8 impropriety[.]” Trujillo, 2009-NMCA-128, ¶ 12 . Furthermore, Defendant was entitled 9 to a trier of fact that was “disinterested and free from any form of bias or 10 predisposition regarding the outcome of the case.” Purpura, 1993-NMCA-001 , ¶ 14 11 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As the district court judge herself 12 notes, she was not serving as the trier of fact in this case; that role fell to the jury. 13 Defendant does not contend that he was denied a fair and impartial jury. Because the 14 district court judge did not have any personal or extra-judicial knowledge about 15 Defendant’s case, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying his motion 16 to request recusal. 17 VII. The District Court Did Not Err in Denying Defendant’s Motion for Change 18 of Venue 19 {35} Pursuant to State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151 , 78 N.M. 127 , 428 P.2d 982 , 20 and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029 , 103 N.M. 655 , 712 P.2d 1 , Defendant asserts [25] 1 that the district court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue because 2 pretrial publicity in the newspapers and on the internet “resulted in a reasonable 3 probability that [Defendant] could not obtain a fair trial” due to the modest size of the 4 city of Carlsbad and the county of Eddy. In presenting this motion to the district court, 5 Defendant argued that the newspaper and the internet presented information 6 approximately four to five months previously that was prejudicial to Defendant. He 7 further argued that the publicity that he received rendered damnable the possibility of 8 an impartial panel of jurors. The district court denied the motion, finding that the 9 published information was “fairly remote in time” because four to five months had 10 passed since any articles were published. Furthermore, none of the published articles 11 were inflammatory. In response to Defendant’s concerns, the district court stated that 12 it would allow Defendant the leeway prior to trial to question the jury venire in order 13 to ascertain the potential jurors’ knowledge about the case, in an effort to be sure a 14 jury could be impaneled. 15 {36} “We review a district court’s change of venue decision for an abuse of 16 discretion, keeping in mind that its discretion in [the] matter is broad and will not be 17 disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of that discretion can be demonstrated.” State 18 v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 39 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (internal quotation 19 marks and citation omitted). The party appealing carries the burden of establishing a [26] 1 clear abuse of discretion. Id. Our Supreme Court has determined that sufficient 2 prejudice “may be established if a community is so saturated by a barrage of 3 inflammatory and biased publicity, close to the beginning of legal proceedings, that 4 the trial inevitably takes place in an atmosphere of intense public passion.” Id. ¶ 37 5 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). There is nothing in the record before 6 us supporting Defendant’s claim that he would be unable to obtain a fair trial in Eddy 7 County. The district court found that the publications regarding Defendant were 8 published approximately four to five months prior to trial and were not inflammatory. 9 We determine that Defendant has not established a clear abuse of discretion on the 10 part of the district court, and we will not disturb its ruling on appeal. 11 VIII. There is No Cumulative Error Present in the Facts and Circumstances of 12 this Case 13 {37} Lastly, Defendant asserts that the cumulative effect of the errors in this case 14 warrant a reversal of Defendant’s conviction. “The doctrine of cumulative error 15 requires reversal when a series of lesser improprieties throughout a trial are found, in 16 aggregate, to be so prejudicial that the defendant was deprived of the constitutional 17 right to a fair trial.” State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 29 , 126 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 18 807, overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , 275 P.3d 19 110 . The doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly applied; it may not be 20 successfully invoked “when the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant [27] 1 received a fair trial.” State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 63 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 2 814 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). On appeal, Defendant has not 3 shown that his trial was unfair. His mere assertion that the “cumulative impact of all 4 the errors, and potential errors, thus raises severe questions of whether [Defendant] 5 received a fair trial” is not sufficient to establish that he was deprived of a fair trial. 6 See In re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039 , ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 562 , 915 P.2d 318 ( “An 7 assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice.”). Although we have found errors 8 in the trial proceedings, they went primarily to matters outside the fact finding 9 responsibility of the jury. That some require correction does not undermine the jury’s 10 verdict in this case. We hold that Defendant failed to establish prejudice sufficient to 11 justify the grant of a new trial under the doctrine of cumulative error. See State v. 12 Crews, 1989-NMCA-088 , ¶ 72, 110 N.M. 723 , 799 P.2d 592 . 13 CONCLUSION 14 {38} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant’s sentence in part, vacate 15 Defendant’s sentence in part and remand to the district court for entry of judgment, 16 resentencing, and the correction of a clerical error in accordance with this Opinion. 17 {39} IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 _________________________________ [28] 1 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3 _________________________________ 4 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 5 _________________________________ 6 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge