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 a nine-year-old child, his niece, during a weekend when she and her brother were left in his care. The alleged abuse included inappropriate touching and forced sexual acts. The Defendant denied the allegations, claiming the child fabricated the story out of anger and a desire for attention (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Convicted the Defendant of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the third degree and one count of kidnapping without great bodily harm.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in several respects, including admitting prior allegations of sexual behavior, allowing expert testimony that improperly bolstered the victim's credibility, admitting a videotaped interview as a prior consistent statement, and denying a motion for mistrial after a witness mentioned a polygraph test. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence (paras 1, 4-7, 34, 38).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the evidence and testimony were properly admitted and sufficient to support the convictions. The State argued that the videotaped interview was admissible to rebut claims of fabrication and that the polygraph reference was not prejudicial (paras 6-7, 20, 34-36).
Legal Issues
- Was the videotaped interview of the victim admissible as a prior consistent statement under SCRA 1986, 11-801(D)(1)(b)?
- Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of prior sexual behavior between the Defendant and the victim?
- Was the expert testimony of Julia Barker improperly admitted?
- Did the trial court err in limiting the Defendant's cross-examination of the victim's brother?
- Did the reference to the Defendant's willingness to take a polygraph examination warrant a mistrial?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial due to the improper admission of the videotaped interview as a prior consistent statement (para 41).
Reasons
Per Apodaca CJ (Black and Flores JJ. concurring):
Videotaped Interview: The Court held that the videotaped interview was inadmissible under SCRA 11-801(D)(1)(b) because it was made after the alleged motive to fabricate arose. The Court overruled prior precedent allowing a more flexible interpretation of the rule, aligning instead with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation in Tome v. United States (paras 8-20).
Prior Sexual Behavior: The Court found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of prior sexual behavior, as it demonstrated the Defendant's lewd disposition toward the victim and provided context for the allegations (paras 25-27).
Expert Testimony: The Court determined that the expert testimony of Julia Barker was properly admitted. Barker's general statements about child memory and interview protocols were relevant and did not directly comment on the victim's credibility (paras 28-32).
Cross-Examination: The trial court properly limited the Defendant's cross-examination of the victim's brother by excluding extrinsic evidence of prior false allegations, consistent with SCRA 11-608(B) (para 33).
Polygraph Reference: The Court held that the reference to the Defendant's willingness to take a polygraph test was not prejudicial and did not warrant a mistrial. The statement could have been perceived as favorable to the Defendant (paras 34-37).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found that the evidence presented at trial, including the victim's testimony and corroborating medical evidence, was sufficient for a rational jury to convict the Defendant (paras 38-40).