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 convicted for criminal sexual penetration in the third degree (CSP III). The incident involved the victim, who after consuming alcohol during her birthday party, fell asleep and later awoke to find the Defendant penetrating her from behind without her consent (para 5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Marci Beyer, District Judge, convicting the Defendant for CSP III.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by overruling defense counsel’s request to invoke the rule requiring witnesses to be absent during trial testimony and by permitting the victim and her attorney to be present in the courtroom throughout the trial. Additionally, the Appellant retracted a previous stipulation to the victim’s presence throughout the trial and re-invoked the rule of exclusion for the victim, citing extreme prejudice and the potential for the victim to structure her testimony to avoid impeachment (paras 3-4).
• Appellee: The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the Appellee. However, it can be inferred that the Appellee supported the trial court's decision to allow the victim and her attorney to be present during the trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by overruling defense counsel’s request to invoke the rule requiring witnesses to be absent during trial testimony and by permitting the victim and her attorney to be present in the courtroom throughout the trial (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, finding no error in the trial court's decisions (para 6).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument that the district court erred in allowing the victim and her attorney to be present throughout the trial. The New Mexico Constitution and the Victims of Crime Act entitle victims to attend all public court proceedings that the accused has the right to attend. The rule of exclusion does not authorize excluding a person authorized by law to be present. The Defendant did not demonstrate that the presence of the victim at trial actually harmed his case, as he did not claim to have been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the victim about her testimony and any inconsistencies. Furthermore, the victim's account of the events remained consistent, and there was no indication that her presence throughout the trial interfered with any of the Defendant's constitutional rights. Without a showing of harm, the Court found no basis to reverse the district court’s ruling (paras 3-6).