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, Phillip Salazar, was accused by Tammie Chavez of sneaking into her apartment, physically and sexually assaulting her, and preventing her from seeking help for nearly four hours. The incident occurred after the two, who had been in a consensual sexual relationship for about a year, had consensual sex the day before the alleged attack. Chavez did not initially disclose the sexual assault or the nature of her relationship with Salazar to law enforcement or medical personnel. It was only after DNA results were returned that she disclosed their consensual sexual relationship around the time of the incident (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court committed reversible error by preventing him from impeaching Chavez with a prior omission inconsistent with her testimony at trial regarding her failure to disclose the full extent of her relationship with the Defendant during the investigation (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the district court erroneously ruled that the Defendant’s cross-examination of Chavez about her failure to disclose her ongoing, consensual sexual relationship with the Defendant was prohibited by New Mexico’s rape shield statute (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether it was error for the district court to limit the cross-examination of Chavez under New Mexico’s rape shield statute (para 6).
• Whether the district court’s error was harmful, such that reversal is required (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court committed reversible error by limiting the cross-examination of Chavez under the rape shield statute and remanded for a new trial (paras 1, 24).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jennifer L. Attrep writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Gerald E. Baca and Katherine A. Wray, found that the district court erred in applying the rape shield statute to prevent the Defendant from impeaching Chavez’s credibility by questioning her about her failure to disclose the ongoing, consensual sexual relationship with the Defendant. The court reasoned that the questions were aimed at Chavez’s credibility and not her sexual propensity, which the rape shield statute intends to protect. The court also found that the evidence Defendant sought to elicit was not merely cumulative of other impeachment evidence but offered potentially more powerful impeachment evidence. Given the importance of Chavez’s credibility to the State’s case, particularly regarding the element of restraint in the kidnapping charge, the court concluded that the district court’s error was not harmless and prejudiced the Defendant, warranting a new trial (paras 7-23).