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 case involves a defendant convicted in 1991 of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration and four counts of third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor. The victim, a ten-year-old girl at the time of the incident, alleged that the defendant sexually assaulted her while she and her family temporarily stayed at his residence. The defense argued that the victim fabricated the allegations to reunite her feuding parents or was influenced by her father’s leading questions (paras 1-19).
Procedural History
- State v. Jordan, 116 N.M. 76, 860 P.2d 206: The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's convictions on direct appeal (para 1).
- State v. Jordan, 115 N.M. 795, 858 P.2d 1274 (1993): The Supreme Court of New Mexico denied the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari (para 1).
- District Court, date unspecified: The district court granted the defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding ineffective assistance of counsel (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the district court erred in granting the writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the defendant's trial counsel provided effective assistance and that any alleged deficiencies did not prejudice the outcome of the trial (paras 1, 25-28).
- Appellee (Defendant): Claimed that trial counsel failed to consult or present expert witnesses, inadequately cross-examined the State's experts, and failed to investigate or present evidence that could have undermined the victim's credibility, amounting to ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 20-24, 29-48).
Legal Issues
- Did the defendant's trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to consult or present expert witnesses and by inadequately cross-examining the State's experts?
- Was there a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the alleged deficiencies in trial counsel's performance?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court's grant of the writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the defendant's petition with prejudice (para 50).
Reasons
Per Serna CJ. (Baca and Maes JJ., Wechsler J., and Fitch J. concurring):
The Court applied the two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington, requiring the defendant to show both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice (paras 25-27).
Hair Analysis Expert: The Court found that the defense counsel's cross-examination of the State's hair analysis expert sufficiently addressed the limitations of the evidence. The testimony of the defendant's expert at the habeas hearing was speculative and did not demonstrate that the trial counsel's performance was deficient or prejudicial (paras 30-34).
Psychological Profile Evidence: The Court held that the psychological profile evidence offered by the defendant's expert was of limited probative value and likely inadmissible. Defense counsel's decision not to pursue this evidence was a reasonable trial strategy (paras 35-37).
Cross-Examination of State's Experts: The Court determined that defense counsel effectively cross-examined the State's experts, including challenging the reliability of their findings and highlighting alternative explanations for the evidence. The failure to consult additional experts did not render the trial counsel's performance deficient (paras 38-43).
Failure to Present Expert Testimony: The Court rejected the district court's finding that expert testimony was required to rebut the State's experts. It emphasized that defense counsel's reliance on cross-examination and strategic decisions not to call additional experts were within the bounds of reasonable professional judgment (paras 44-47).
Expert Testimony on Ineffectiveness: The Court dismissed the testimony of the defendant's expert on ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that it improperly sought to apply legal standards to the facts, a task reserved for the court (paras 48-49).
The Court concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate that trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that any alleged deficiencies prejudiced the outcome of the trial. Accordingly, the district court's grant of the writ of habeas corpus was vacated (paras 50-51).