This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was accused of inappropriately touching his granddaughter during the summer of 2000 while applying medicinal ointment to treat her rash. The child alleged that the Defendant touched her "private area" during at least one of these treatments. Additional allegations included the Defendant walking naked in front of the child, showing her a pornographic video, and other acts described as "grooming behavior" (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The trial court admitted evidence of the Defendant's alleged grooming behavior and denied a motion for a directed verdict (paras 6-7).
- State v. Sena, 2007-NMCA-115: The Court of Appeals vacated the Defendant's convictions, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support one of the convictions and that the grooming evidence was improperly admitted (paras 7-8).
Parties' Submissions
- State: Argued that the grooming evidence was admissible under Rule 11-404(B) to show the Defendant's intent and that sufficient evidence supported both CSCM convictions (paras 3, 9, 12-14).
- Defendant: Contended that the grooming evidence was inadmissible as improper character evidence and that the evidence was insufficient to support more than one CSCM conviction (paras 3, 6, 8).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's two convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor?
- Was the grooming evidence properly admitted under Rule 11-404(B) and Rule 11-403?
- Was expert testimony required to admit the grooming evidence?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further consideration of unresolved issues (para 23).
Reasons
Per Serna J. (Chávez CJ., Maes, Bosson, and Daniels JJ. concurring):
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court held that the jury could reasonably resolve inconsistencies in the child's testimony to conclude that the Defendant touched her twice during the charging period. The standard of review requires deference to the jury's resolution of conflicting evidence (paras 10-11).
Admissibility of Grooming Evidence: The grooming evidence was admissible under Rule 11-404(B) to show the Defendant's intent. The evidence countered the Defendant's claim that the touching was for medicinal purposes and not sexual in nature. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to admit this evidence (paras 12-15).
Rule 11-403 Analysis: The Court determined that the probative value of the grooming evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. The evidence was critical to proving the Defendant's sexual intent, and the trial court did not err in admitting it (paras 16-17).
Expert Testimony: The Court rejected the argument that expert testimony was required to admit the grooming evidence. It held that laypersons could understand the evidence as indicative of sexual intent without specialized knowledge (paras 18-22).
The Court concluded that the trial court's rulings on the directed verdict motion and the admission of the grooming evidence were proper, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision (para 23).