SANTA FE, N.M. – The NewMexicoSupremeCourthas reinstated the convictions of a Grants man for raping an intoxicated womanandtamperingwith evidence related to the crime.
In a unanimous decision, the justices overturned a ruling by the Court of Appeals that had ordered a new trial and affirmed Joseph R. Apodaca’s convictions on two counts of criminal sexual penetration and one count of tampering with evidence. Apodaca was sentenced to 36 years in prison.
Apodaca, who had argued that the jury should have been instructed to consider a “mistake- of-fact defense” regarding the victim’s consent, was denied relief by the state’s highest court. The justices determined that such an instruction was unnecessary under the legal theories presented at trial.
Apodaca and the victim, who had been middle school acquaintances, reconnected through social media and agreed to meet at an Albuquerque nightclub in 2014. After consuming multiple alcoholic drinks, the two left the club and engaged in sexual activity in a pickup truck. The court found that Apodaca penetrated the victim with his hand, causing severe injuries, including vaginal and rectal tears that required emergency surgery.
Rather than ensuring the victim received medical attention, Apodaca and his cousin drove her to Belen and left her in the car, semi-conscious and covered in blood. Her father later found her alone in a parking lot, wearing only a top, with blood covering her legs and pooling on the floor of the vehicle.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Chief Justice David K. Thomson, writing for the court, emphasized that a mistake- of-fact instruction was unnecessary because the jury had already been instructed to determine whether Apodaca knew or should have known that the victim was too intoxicated to consent. The ruling clarified that New Mexico law does not require a separate instruction on a defendant’s belief regarding a victim’s ability to consent if the jury has already been tasked with making that determination through existing legal instructions.
The court also rejected Apodaca’s argument regarding his conviction for tampering with evidence. Apodaca had claimed that if he did not believe he had committed a crime, he could not have had the intent to cover it up. The justices dismissed this argument, stating that intent to mislead law enforcement is not negated by a subjective belief in one’s innocence.
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that an intoxicated victim’s capacity to consent is a key factor in sexual assault cases, and that efforts to obstruct an investigation can be prosecuted independently of a perpetrator’s belief in their innocence.
The decision overturns the previous ruling by the Court of Appeals, which had granted Apodaca a new trial based on its conclusion that the jury should have been given a mistake-of-fact instruction. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that Apodaca will serve his original 36-year sentence.