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 accused of sexually abusing his step-niece, A.R., when she was seven years old. A.R. disclosed the abuse to hospital staff as she was about to enter high school. The State charged the Defendant with first-degree criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor, alleging the abuse occurred between August 23, 2006, and August 22, 2008, at her grandmother's house (para 2).

Procedural History

• February 2017: Defendant was indicted by a grand jury on one count of first-degree CSPM of a child under thirteen and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (para 2).
• June 2019: After multiple delays, including withdrawal of Defendant’s counsel, a competency determination, and the disqualification of the Second Judicial District Attorney’s Office, the trial proceeded, and the Defendant was found guilty of CSPM (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the twenty-eight-month delay between indictment and trial violated his right to a speedy trial. Contended that the district court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment dates, declined to review certain grand jury testimony, and failed to order a mistrial (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Asserted that the delay was largely attributable to the Defendant and that the amendment of the indictment did not prejudice the Defendant’s defense. The State maintained its theory of the case consistently throughout the proceedings (paras 19-20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated due to the twenty-eight-month delay between his indictment and trial (para 4).
• Whether the district court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment dates (para 19).
• Whether the district court erred in declining to review testimony presented to the second grand jury and in denying the Defendant's motion for a mistrial (para 23).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no violation of the Defendant's right to a speedy trial and no error in the district court's rulings (para 24).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Chief Judge Hanisee, with Judges Attrep and Yohalem concurring, held that the twenty-eight-month delay did not violate the Defendant's right to a speedy trial, attributing most of the delay to neutral reasons and some to the State, but not enough to weigh heavily in the Defendant's favor (paras 5-18). The court applied the Barker v. Wingo balancing test, considering the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the Defendant's assertion of his right, and the prejudice to the Defendant. The court found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate particularized prejudice from the delay (para 17). Regarding the amendment of the indictment, the court found no actual prejudice to the Defendant's defense, noting the consistent theory of the case presented by the State and the opportunity given to the Defendant to adjust his defense strategy (paras 19-22). The court also found the Defendant's remaining claims of error, including the district court's refusal to review grand jury testimony and denial of a mistrial motion, to be without merit (para 23).