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 criminal sexual penetration of an eight-year-old child while babysitting her and her siblings. The child alleged that the Defendant took her to her parents' bedroom, instructed her to undress, and then penetrated her. The Defendant denied any sexual contact and sought to introduce evidence that the child did not exhibit physical or psychological signs of sexual abuse (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, First Trial: The Defendant's first trial ended in a hung jury (para 1).
- District Court, Second Trial: The Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual penetration (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by excluding expert testimony on PTSD, disallowing evidence of his relationship with the child’s family, and refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of criminal sexual contact (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court's rulings were proper and that the exclusion of the PTSD testimony was justified to avoid jury confusion and undue prejudice (paras 5-9).
Legal Issues
- Was the exclusion of expert testimony on PTSD reversible error?
- Did the district court err in disallowing evidence of the Defendant's relationship with the child’s family?
- Should the jury have been instructed on the lesser-included offense of criminal sexual contact?
Disposition
- The Defendant's conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial (para 15).
Reasons
Per Harris L. Hartz, Chief Judge (Thomas A. Donnelly and Rudy S. Apodaca, JJ., concurring):
Exclusion of PTSD Testimony: The court found that the exclusion of Dr. Cave's expert testimony on PTSD was reversible error. The testimony was relevant and could have assisted the jury in evaluating whether the child exhibited symptoms consistent with sexual abuse. The court rejected concerns about jury confusion and undue prejudice, noting that proper jury instructions could address these issues. The court emphasized that PTSD testimony is scientifically valid and probative, as established in prior case law (paras 4-9).
Evidence of Relationship with the Family: The Defendant failed to preserve this issue for appeal by choosing not to pursue the line of questioning after the court indicated it might allow evidence of the Defendant's prior conviction. The court did not express a view on the merits of this issue but noted that retrial would allow the district court to reconsider the matter (paras 10-12).
Lesser-Included-Offense Instruction: The court acknowledged that the evidence could support a jury finding of criminal sexual contact without penetration. However, it left the determination of whether to provide such an instruction to the district court on retrial, depending on how the evidence develops (paras 13-14).
Conclusion: The exclusion of the PTSD testimony constituted reversible error, necessitating a new trial (para 15).