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 sexually assaulting M.R., the twelve-year-old daughter of his then-girlfriend. During an initial police interview, the Defendant denied the allegations and stated that his father had been in the house but later left. At trial, the Defendant and his father testified that the father had been present in the house all day, contradicting the Defendant's earlier statement. The prosecutor questioned the Defendant's failure to inform the police of this new information before trial (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• State v. Pacheco, 2006-NMCA-002, 138 N.M. 737, 126 P.3d 553: The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction, finding that the presence of an interpreter during jury deliberations was unauthorized (para 1).
• State v. Pacheco, 2007-NMSC-009, 141 N.M. 340, 155 P.3d 745: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the remaining issues raised by the Defendant (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing arguments improperly commented on his constitutional right to remain silent, violating due process (paras 8-9).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the prosecutor's focus was on the inconsistency between the Defendant's initial statement and trial testimony, not on his silence, and that the Defendant opened the door to such questioning (paras 15-16).

Legal Issues

• Did the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing arguments constitute impermissible commentary on the Defendant's constitutional right to remain silent?
• Was the prosecutor's conduct sufficiently prejudicial to constitute fundamental error?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial (para 20).

Reasons

Per Vigil J. (Wechsler and Robinson JJ. concurring):

• The prosecutor's questioning and closing arguments improperly commented on the Defendant's post-Miranda silence, violating his constitutional right to remain silent. The prosecutor implied that the Defendant's failure to contact the police with exculpatory information before trial undermined his credibility, which is impermissible under Doyle v. Ohio and related precedents (paras 9-14).
• The Court rejected the State's argument that the Defendant opened the door to such questioning or that the comments were permissible to support a theory of recent fabrication. The focus of the prosecutor's comments was on the Defendant's silence, not merely the inconsistency in his statements (paras 15-17).
• The improper commentary was prejudicial because the case hinged on witness credibility, and the evidence against the Defendant was not overwhelming. The prosecutor's conduct likely influenced the jury's deliberations, constituting fundamental error (paras 18-19).