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

• Two minors, D.H. and N.A., residents of New Day Youth and Family Services shelter, alleged they were sexually assaulted by the Defendant, Shane Sandoval. The incident occurred after they met Sandoval, who they knew from Facebook, and were taken to his apartment. N.A. claimed that while another male, Leon Harker, assaulted her, Sandoval and D.H. were in another room. The following morning, after Harker and D.H. left, Sandoval allegedly sexually assaulted N.A. (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by denying a continuance, improperly excluded the Defendant’s child trauma expert, erred in limiting the testimony of the Defendant’s DNA expert, and erroneously admitted Facebook messages (para 1).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the trial court's decisions regarding the continuance, expert testimony, and admission of Facebook messages were correct and did not constitute an abuse of discretion or violate the Defendant's rights (paras 6, 8, 14, 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by denying the Defendant's motion for a continuance (para 6).
• Whether the district court improperly excluded the Defendant’s child trauma expert and erred in limiting the testimony of the Defendant’s DNA expert (paras 8, 14).
• Whether the district court erroneously admitted Facebook messages into evidence (para 17).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all issues raised by the Defendant (para 1).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge; BOGARDUS, Judge; YOHALEM, Judge (Concurring): The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of a continuance, noting the Defendant did not sufficiently demonstrate how the factors for granting a continuance applied in this case (para 7). Regarding the exclusion of the Defendant’s child trauma expert, the Court agreed with the district court that the disclosure was untimely and that the expert's proposed testimony was impermissible as it would constitute an impermissible comment on the witness's credibility (paras 8-12). The limitation on the Defendant’s DNA expert's testimony was deemed appropriate as the expert's speculation on DNA transfer in this specific case was found to be speculative (para 15). Lastly, the Court found no error in the admission of Facebook messages as business records and determined that the messages did not violate the Defendant's right of confrontation because they were non-testimonial (paras 17-27).