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 sexually abusing his girlfriend's daughter, a minor under thirteen, on multiple occasions between January and April 2005. The allegations included vaginal penetration with fingers, touching of breasts and stomach, and touching over clothing. The victim disclosed the abuse to her mother, leading to a medical examination, an interview at a child advocacy center, and grand jury testimony (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Roosevelt County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration, five counts of second-degree criminal sexual contact, and one count of third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury pool did not represent a fair cross-section of the community, the court erred in denying a motion to question jurors about seeing the Defendant in shackles, and the court abused its discretion in several evidentiary rulings, including excluding evidence of the victim's prior false allegations and denying a psychological evaluation of the victim (paras 1, 4-6, 19, 24-33).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the jury pool was properly assembled, the Defendant was not prejudiced by the shackling issue, and the evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion. The State also argued that the excluded evidence was irrelevant or inadmissible under the rape shield statute and that the Defendant failed to meet the burden for a psychological evaluation of the victim (paras 9-18, 24-33).
Legal Issues
- Did the jury pool fail to represent a fair cross-section of the community, violating the Defendant's constitutional rights?
- Did the district court err in denying the Defendant's motion to question jurors individually about seeing him in shackles?
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the victim's prior allegations and denying a psychological evaluation of the victim?
- Were the district court's evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of certain evidence and the admission of others, an abuse of discretion?
- Did the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments constitute reversible error?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions on all counts (para 52).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Jury Pool: The Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of systematic exclusion of Hispanics from the jury pool. The court found that the jury selection process was random and neutral, and the Defendant's reliance on Hispanic surnames and census data was insufficient to prove under-representation or systematic exclusion (paras 13-18).
Shackling Issue: The court determined that the Defendant did not fully enter the courtroom in shackles, and there was no evidence that jurors saw the shackles. The district court's decision to hold an evidentiary hearing instead of individually questioning jurors was not an abuse of discretion (paras 19-23).
Exclusion of Victim's Prior Allegations: The court upheld the exclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior allegations under the rape shield statute, finding that the Defendant failed to show the allegations were false, relevant, or material to his defense. The court also found no violation of the Defendant's confrontation rights (paras 24-32).
Denial of Psychological Evaluation: The court ruled that the Defendant did not demonstrate a compelling reason for a psychological evaluation of the victim, as required by law. The district court properly considered all evidence before denying the motion (paras 33-34).
Evidentiary Rulings: The court found no abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of the victim's brother's school records and limiting testimony about disagreements between the victim and the Defendant. The admission of employment records showing the Defendant's disciplinary history was deemed harmless error, as the information was cumulative and unlikely to have influenced the verdict (paras 35-46).
Prosecutor's Closing Argument: The court found that the prosecutor's statements were either supported by evidence, minor misstatements promptly corrected, or not prejudicial. The cumulative error doctrine did not apply (paras 47-51).