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 sentenced to a nine-year incarcerative sentence, suspended in favor of five years of supervised probation, after pleading no contest to criminal sexual penetration in the second degree. A special condition of his probation required him to successfully complete a sex offender specific therapy, including polygraph testing. The State filed a motion to revoke the Defendant's probation for failing to successfully complete the sex offender treatment program. The probation revocation hearing took place a day before the scheduled completion of his probation term (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Robert M. Schwartz, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, October 10, 2012, No. 33,803.
• Released for Publication December 18, 2012.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that his right to confrontation was violated when the district court allowed testimony about his polygraph results from someone other than the individual who administered the test. Asserted a due process right to confront witnesses against him in the context of a probation revocation proceeding (paras 2-3, 8).
• State: Countered that the probation violation was based on the Defendant's failure to fully cooperate and complete the sex offender treatment, not solely on the polygraph test failure. Argued that evidence of the polygraph was not necessary to prove the violation (paras 4, 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated by allowing testimony regarding his polygraph results by someone other than the person who administered and interpreted the polygraph test.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Defendant's right to due process was violated (para 17).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge J. Miles Hanisee with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, found that the Defendant's due process rights were violated. The Court applied the standard from State v. Guthrie, considering the need for confrontation in light of the truth-finding process and the specific case at hand. The Court determined that the polygraph evidence was central and contested, rather than merely objective, routine, or independently proven. The Court noted that polygraph examiners are required to be licensed and adhere to specific procedures, making the foundation-less testimony about the Defendant's polygraph results problematic. The Court concluded that the State's introduction of the polygraph results, along with the Defendant's refusal to admit all initially charged conduct, was central to the probation revocation proceeding. This centrality, combined with the subjective and interpretative nature of the polygraph evidence and the Defendant's challenge to its reliability, placed the case on the "no good cause" end of the spectrum established in Guthrie, demonstrating the utility of confrontation under these facts (paras 9-16).