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, a stepfather, was accused of sexually abusing his 12-year-old stepdaughter over a period of time, which led to her attempting suicide. The child initially disclosed the abuse to medical personnel and investigators but later recanted her statements during the trial, claiming she fabricated the allegations out of anger. The Defendant had confessed to social workers about his attraction to the child and the abuse but sought to suppress these statements, claiming privilege. Expert testimony on child abuse and recantation was presented at trial (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of McKinley County: The Defendant was convicted of four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by (1) allowing social workers to testify about his confession, violating the social worker-client privilege; (2) admitting expert testimony without establishing its scientific reliability; and (3) permitting the expert to comment on the child’s veracity, which invaded the jury’s role (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to preserve the first two arguments at trial and that the expert testimony did not improperly comment on the child’s credibility (paras 7-9, 19).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s statements to social workers were protected by the social worker-client privilege.
• Whether the expert testimony on recantation was admissible without establishing its scientific reliability.
• Whether the expert’s testimony improperly commented on the child’s credibility, thereby invading the jury’s role.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction (para 20).

Reasons

Per Castillo J. (Alarid and Sutin JJ. concurring):

• Social Worker-Client Privilege: The Defendant failed to preserve the argument regarding privilege under NMSA 1978, § 61-31-24, as it was not raised at trial. The court also noted that the Defendant abandoned his argument under Rule 11-509 NMRA 2002 on appeal (paras 7-10).

• Expert Testimony on Recantation: The Defendant did not timely object to the expert’s qualifications or the scientific reliability of her testimony. The court found that the objection was raised only after significant testimony on recantation had already been presented, rendering it untimely (paras 12-18).

• Comment on Veracity: The court held that the expert did not comment on the child’s credibility or the truth of her allegations. The expert’s testimony was limited to general information about recantation, leaving the determination of credibility to the jury (para 19).

The court concluded that the Defendant’s arguments were either procedurally barred or without merit, affirming the trial court’s decision (para 20).