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 charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) involving three minor victims. The charges stemmed from incidents that occurred in New Mexico and were supported by videotaped depositions of the victims, which were taken after the Defendant agreed to their use in lieu of live testimony during the trial (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court, December 1992: The Defendant's motion for a continuance was denied, but the trial court allowed videotaped depositions of the victims to be taken and used at trial. The Defendant agreed to this arrangement (paras 3-4).
• District Court, April 1993: The Defendant was acquitted of two counts of CSPM, and a mistrial was declared on the remaining counts (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in admitting the videotaped depositions at the second trial without the required showing of harm to the victims if they testified live. The Defendant also claimed that the amendment of charges after the depositions prejudiced his ability to cross-examine the victims and that his waiver of the right to confront witnesses was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary (paras 9-16).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant had agreed to the use of the videotaped depositions and that the trial court properly admitted them. The Plaintiff also argued that the amendments to the charges were based on evidence from the depositions and did not prejudice the Defendant (paras 9-16).

Legal Issues

• Was the admission of the videotaped depositions at the second trial proper under the applicable legal standards?
• Did the amendment of charges after the videotaped depositions prejudice the Defendant's ability to cross-examine the victims?
• Was the Defendant's waiver of the right to confront witnesses knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?
• Was the admission of testimony regarding uncharged conduct and other evidence proper?
• Was there cumulative error in the trial proceedings?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions and sentences (para 23).

Reasons

Per Apodaca CJ (Hartz and Black JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the videotaped depositions were properly admitted because the Defendant had agreed to their use in lieu of live testimony at trial. The Defendant's agreement constituted a waiver of any objection to their admissibility (paras 9-10).
• The Court found no prejudice in the amendment of charges after the depositions, as the amendments conformed to the evidence presented during the depositions, and the Defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the victims at trial but chose not to do so (paras 11-13).
• The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that his waiver of the right to confront witnesses was coerced, finding that the trial court did not compel the Defendant to agree to the depositions in exchange for a continuance. The agreement applied to any trial, including the second trial after the mistrial (paras 14-16).
• The Court determined that testimony regarding uncharged conduct was admissible under Rule 11-404(B) to show the Defendant's lewd and lascivious disposition toward the victims (paras 17-18).
• The Court found no cumulative error, as there was no error in the admission of testimony from other witnesses, including testimony regarding dates and medical examinations (paras 19-22).