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 criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) following an incident in September 2007. The Victim, a seven-year-old girl, testified that the Defendant touched her genitals and buttocks under her underwear while she was napping in a vehicle. The incident occurred while the Defendant’s ex-wife was briefly inside a church. The Victim’s consistent statements were corroborated by her mother, a police officer, and a safehouse interviewer. The Defendant denied the allegations and presented testimony from his ex-wife, who claimed she did not observe any unusual behavior from the Victim (paras 1, 4-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, San Miguel County: The Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the admission of a recorded conversation between him and his ex-wife was improper due to its prejudicial nature and late disclosure. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 1, 7, 36).
- Respondent (State): Asserted that the recorded conversation was highly probative for impeachment purposes and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction. The State also argued that the Defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 8-9, 36).
Legal Issues
- Was the recorded conversation between the Defendant and his ex-wife improperly admitted into evidence?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor?
- Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction (para 36).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Vanzi and Robles JJ. concurring):
Admission of the Recorded Conversation:
The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recorded conversation. The recording was deemed highly probative for impeachment purposes, as it revealed discrepancies between the Defendant’s testimony and the conversation’s content. The prejudicial effect of revealing the Defendant’s incarceration was minimal and not emphasized by the prosecution. Additionally, the late disclosure of the recording did not amount to fundamental error, as the defense was given an opportunity to review it during a recess, and its use was limited to rebuttal (paras 8-35).
Sufficiency of the Evidence:
The Court found that the Victim’s testimony, corroborated by consistent statements to her mother, a police officer, and a safehouse interviewer, provided substantial evidence to support the conviction. The lack of physical evidence or corroboration did not undermine the sufficiency of the Victim’s testimony, as corroboration is not required for CSCM convictions. The jury was entitled to reject the Defendant’s version of events (paras 36-39).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
The Court rejected the Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting that the record did not support his assertion that further investigation of potential alibi witnesses would have strengthened his defense. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel’s performance fell below a reasonable standard or that any alleged deficiencies prejudiced the defense (paras 40-42).