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 lived with the mother of a four-month-old child and the child at his grandmother's house. The mother left the child in the Defendant's care on two consecutive days. On the first day, the Defendant reported that the child had fallen off the couch, but the child appeared normal. The following day, the mother found the child unable to move his right arm and vomiting. The child was taken to the hospital, where severe injuries were discovered, including a skull fracture, bruising, and retinal bleeding, leading to an air-lift to another hospital for critical care (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• February 22, 2013: A grand jury indicted the Defendant on charges of child abuse resulting in great bodily harm, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-6-1(D) (2009) (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, the expert witness's testimony on the cause of the child's injuries was improper, the jury was incorrectly instructed, the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the Defendant causing the child's injuries, and a new trial should be ordered due to cumulative error and an incomplete record (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant was properly convicted based on the evidence presented, including expert testimony that the child's injuries were consistent with abuse and not accidental, and that the prosecutorial conduct and jury instructions were appropriate.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by using inflammatory hypothetical scenarios and referring to injuries not caused by the alleged abuse by Defendant.
• Whether the State’s expert witness improperly testified as to the cause of Child’s injuries.
• Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury regarding intentional but not negligent child abuse and by including “failure to act” in the jury instruction that defined intentional conduct.
• Whether the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Defendant caused Child’s injuries.
• Whether a new trial should be ordered because of cumulative error and an incomplete record (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction of the Defendant for intentional child abuse resulting in great bodily harm (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Henry M. Bohnhoff, with Judges Michael E. Vigil and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found no prosecutorial misconduct, deemed the expert testimony appropriate, upheld the jury instructions, and concluded that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction. The court also found no basis for a new trial due to cumulative error or the incomplete record, emphasizing the Defendant's responsibility to supplement the missing portions of the record and noting that the alleged errors, even if considered, would not have altered the trial's outcome. The court relied on established standards for reviewing prosecutorial conduct, expert testimony, jury instructions, and sufficiency of evidence, and applied these standards to affirm the conviction (paras 15-47).