AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 contact of a minor (CSCM) for allegedly touching the private vaginal area of the Victim, his girlfriend’s daughter, on or about April 29, 2005. The Victim testified that the Defendant had touched her inappropriately on multiple occasions over four years, starting when she was ten years old. The Defendant denied the allegations, claiming he only hugged the Victim or slapped her on the bottom, which he argued were non-criminal acts.

Procedural History

• District Court, October 25, 2006: The Defendant was convicted of one count of CSCM. The court admitted evidence of uncharged touchings to show absence of mistake or accident.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged touchings under Rule 11-404(B) NMRA, as the evidence was improperly used to show propensity rather than absence of mistake. The Defendant also contended that the court erred in sentencing him for a second-degree felony when the jury instructions supported only a third-degree felony and in failing to credit him for pre-sentence confinement.
• State-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence of uncharged touchings was admissible to show absence of mistake or accident. On appeal, the State alternatively argued that the evidence was relevant to the Defendant’s intent and position of authority over the Victim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged touchings under Rule 11-404(B) NMRA.
• Whether the district court erred in sentencing the Defendant for a second-degree felony when the jury instructions supported only a third-degree felony.
• Whether the district court erred in failing to credit the Defendant for pre-sentence confinement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial due to the improper admission of evidence of uncharged touchings, which caused actual prejudice to the Defendant.

Reasons

Per Garcia J. (Fry CJ. and Wechsler J. concurring):

The Court found that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged touchings under Rule 11-404(B) NMRA. The State failed to articulate a consequential fact other than propensity to which the evidence was directed. The Defendant did not raise a defense of mistake or accident regarding the charged incident, and his statements about hugging or slapping the Victim on the bottom did not constitute an admission of accidental or mistaken touching of her private vaginal area.

The Court distinguished this case from precedents like State v. Otto and State v. Kerby, where evidence of other acts was admitted to show absence of mistake or intent. Here, the Defendant denied any touching of the Victim’s private vaginal area, and the State did not present evidence to suggest accidental or mistaken touching. The admission of uncharged touchings improperly suggested the Defendant’s propensity to commit the crime, creating a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.

The Court also rejected the State’s alternative arguments on appeal regarding intent and position of authority, as these were not raised at the district court level, and the Defendant was not given a fair opportunity to respond.

Applying the non-constitutional harmless error standard, the Court determined that the error was not harmless. The impermissible evidence of uncharged touchings was disproportionately large compared to the evidence of the single charged act, and there was conflicting testimony that could discredit the State’s case. The Court concluded that the error likely affected the verdict, warranting a new trial.