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 criminal sexual contact with a minor. The alleged incident occurred when the victim, a six-year-old girl, was sent to the Defendant's trailer to borrow toenail clippers. Upon her return, after extensive questioning by her mother, the victim disclosed that the Defendant had licked her "private." The victim's testimony at trial was inconsistent and incomplete, and a videotaped police interview of the victim was admitted as evidence, which became a central issue in the appeal (paras 2-12).
Procedural History
- District Court, Eddy County: The Defendant was convicted of one count of criminal sexual contact with a minor.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the videotaped police interview of the victim was improperly admitted as a prior consistent statement, that evidence of uncharged sexual acts involving the Defendant and others was erroneously admitted, and that the failure to instruct the jury on the element of unlawfulness constituted fundamental error (paras 1, 13, 26, 42).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the videotape was admissible under Rule 801(D)(1)(b) as a prior consistent statement to rebut charges of recent fabrication, and that the evidence of uncharged acts was either admissible or harmless. The Plaintiff also argued that the omission of the unlawfulness instruction was not fundamental error (paras 13, 26, 42).
Legal Issues
- Was the videotaped police interview of the victim properly admitted as a prior consistent statement under Rule 801(D)(1)(b)?
- Was it error to admit evidence of uncharged sexual acts involving the Defendant and others?
- Did the failure to instruct the jury on the element of unlawfulness constitute fundamental error?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial (para 45).
Reasons
Per Black J. (Minzner C.J. and Bivins J. concurring):
Videotaped Police Interview: The Court held that the videotaped police interview of the victim was inadmissible under Rule 801(D)(1)(b) because it did not meet the requirements for a prior consistent statement. The victim's trial testimony was inconsistent and incomplete, and the videotape was improperly used to fill gaps in her memory rather than to rebut a charge of recent fabrication. The admission of the videotape was prejudicial and constituted reversible error (paras 13-25).
Evidence of Uncharged Sexual Acts: The Court found that evidence of uncharged sexual acts involving the Defendant and others, including the victim's friend, was improperly admitted. Such evidence was prejudicial and lacked probative value. The Court emphasized that uncharged acts with other children should not be admitted at retrial, and hearsay testimony regarding prior acts with the victim was also inadmissible (paras 26-40).
Jury Instruction on Unlawfulness: The Court determined that the failure to instruct the jury on the element of unlawfulness did not constitute fundamental error. The Defendant denied the incident occurred, and there was no scenario in which the alleged conduct could be considered lawful. Thus, the omission did not affect the outcome of the trial (paras 42-44).
The Court concluded that the errors in admitting the videotape and evidence of uncharged acts, combined with the lack of direct evidence, warranted a new trial (para 45).