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 convicted of sexually abusing two minors, A.D. and J.D., between 1991 and 1996, while living in the same household as the victims and their mother. The abuse, which included criminal sexual penetration, criminal sexual contact, and attempted penetration, was reported to the victims' grandmother in 1996, who removed the children from the home and sought counseling for them. The victims were later diagnosed with PTSD, consistent with sexual abuse. The abuse was reported to authorities in 1997, leading to the Defendant's prosecution (paras 2-7).
Procedural History
- Trial court: The Defendant was convicted of three counts of third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor, three counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration, one count of attempted first-degree criminal sexual penetration, and two counts of bribery or intimidation of a witness. He was sentenced to 45 years, with nine years suspended, for a total of 36 years of imprisonment (para 7).
- Court of Appeals, September 12, 2002: The case was remanded for retrial (para 9).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in several respects, including denying motions to compel psychological evaluations of the victims, failing to provide access to the victims' medical records, admitting expert testimony on PTSD, and refusing to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses. The Defendant also alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments (paras 1, 8, 15, 18, 49, 53).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the Defendant's motions and that the evidence and expert testimony were properly admitted. The Plaintiff also argued that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments did not amount to misconduct.
Legal Issues
- Was the district court correct in denying the Defendant's motion to compel psychological evaluations of the victims?
- Did the district court err in denying the Defendant's motion for discovery of the victims' medical records?
- Was the expert testimony concerning PTSD properly admitted?
- Did the district court err in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses?
- Did the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments constitute misconduct?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions (para 61).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Bustamante CJ. and Vigil J. concurring):
Psychological Evaluations of the Victims:
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for psychological evaluations. The motion was untimely, filed only 12 days before trial, and lacked a specific basis or compelling need. The Defendant failed to demonstrate how such evaluations would have been relevant or beneficial to his defense (paras 8-14).
Discovery of Medical Records:
The district court appropriately balanced the victims' privacy interests with the Defendant's need for evidence. The court limited discovery to medical records directly related to physical abuse and found no error in not conducting an in-camera review, as the Defendant did not request it (paras 15-17).
Expert Testimony on PTSD:
The Court upheld the admission of PTSD testimony, finding it scientifically valid under established precedent. The experts' reliance on the victims' self-reported histories was permissible, and the testimony did not improperly vouch for the victims' credibility or assign causation. The district court was not required to hold a Daubert hearing, as the reliability of PTSD testimony is well-established (paras 18-34).
Medical Expert Testimony:
Dr. Ornelas' testimony about the victims' medical histories and the consistency of her findings with the reported abuse was properly admitted. The testimony was based on valid scientific principles, and the district court did not err in denying a Daubert hearing (paras 35-48).
Lesser-Included Offense Instructions:
The Court found no evidence to support instructions on lesser-included offenses. The victims' testimony was unequivocal regarding the acts of penetration, and no reasonable view of the evidence supported a lesser charge of criminal sexual contact (paras 49-52).
Prosecutorial Misconduct:
The Court rejected the Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct. While some comments during closing arguments were improper, they were not sufficiently egregious to deprive the Defendant of a fair trial. Objections to certain comments were sustained, and the prosecutor complied with the court's rulings (paras 53-60).