{
  "id": 1557057,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert GABALDON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gabaldon",
  "decision_date": "1978-08-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 3519",
  "first_page": "93",
  "last_page": "94",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "92 N.M. 93"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "582 P.2d 1306"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "40 N.M. 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842073
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/40/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2774374
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2803920
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0079-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3072,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.8,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.058198952911926526
    },
    "sha256": "8113a655100bcb9bbf8e2e7e0b56d2e5534749c02af4948e0e88205266606397",
    "simhash": "1:719afbead41de867",
    "word_count": 491
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:13.817562+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert GABALDON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of CSP II (criminal sexual penetration in the second degree) and aggravated battery. Subsequently, an enhanced sentence was imposed upon defendant as an habitual offender. Defendant\u2019s appeal presents one issue \u2014 that the CSP II in this case is the same offense as criminal sexual contact, that equal protection of the law was violated by submitting to the jury the second degree felony, CSP II, rather than the fourth degree felony, criminal sexual contact. See State v. Chavez, 77 N.M. 79, 419 P.2d 456 (1966); State v. Vickery, 85 N.M. 389, 512 P.2d 962 (Ct.App.1973).\nBoth the CSP II offense submitted to the jury, and the criminal sexual contact offense which defendant contends should have been submitted, provide for the perpetration of the crime \u201cby the use of force or coercion which results in personal injury to the victim\u201d. Compare \u00a7 40A-9-21(B)(2) with \u00a7 40A-9-22(A)(1), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6, Supp.1975).\nThe CSP offense in this case was fellatio. Criminal sexual contact is defined in terms of touching \u201cthe unclothed intimate parts of another\u201d. Compare \u00a7 40A-9-21, supra, with \u00a7 40A-9-22, supra.\nU.J.I. Crim. 9.45 was the appropriate instruction stating the elements of the CSP offense in this case. U.J.I. Crim. 9.04, an approved instruction stating the elements of criminal sexual contact, is the instruction defendant contends should have been given. Comparing these two instructions, the only significant difference is that U.J.I. Crim. 9.45, as given by the trial court, used the word \u201cfellatio\u201d while U.J.I. Crim. 9.04, if given, would have used the word \u201cpenis\u201d. See Use Notes to both instructions.\nU.J.I. Crim. 9.82 defines \u201cpenis\u201d as the male organ of urination and sexual intercourse. U.J.I. Crim. 9.84 defines \u201cfellatio\u201d as the touching of the penis with the lips or tongue.\nUnder the above statutes and instructions, defendant could not have committed fellatio without also touching the intimate parts of another inasmuch as \u00a7 40A-9-22, supra, defines \u201cintimate parts\u201d to include the primary genital area. This, however, does not mean that CSP II, by fellatio, is the same offense as criminal sexual contact; fellatio requires a particular type of touching \u2014 with the lips or tongue.\nSection 40A-9-22, supra, is a general statute prohibiting a touching of intimate parts. Section 40A-9-21, supra, is a specific statute prohibiting a touching of the penis with the lips or tongue. Section 40A-9-21, supra, was the applicable statute because the specific statute prevails over the general statute. State v. Blevins, 40 N.M. 367, 60 P.2d 208 (1936).\nThe judgment and sentences are affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Michael J. Dickman, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Jacob G. Vigil, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "582 P.2d 1306\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert GABALDON, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 3519.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nAug. 8, 1978.\nJohn B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Michael J. Dickman, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Jacob G. Vigil, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0093-01",
  "first_page_order": 129,
  "last_page_order": 130
}