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 of three counts of criminal sexual contact (CSC) of a minor under thirteen years of age, where the victim was his niece. The victim disclosed the abuse to her cousin and mother, stating the Defendant engaged in sexual acts with her at his apartment while babysitting. The victim's age and the dates of the incidents were initially uncertain, leading to an amendment of the indictment to accurately reflect the timeline of the abuse as revealed through further investigation and pretrial interviews (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by allowing the State to amend the indictment after filing his notice of alibi defense, quashing the subpoena for the victim advocate, excluding his notice of alibi and the motion to amend the indictment from evidence, admitting the victim's safe house interview under Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b) NMRA, and denying his motion for a speedy trial (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the amendment to the indictment was necessary to accurately reflect the timeline of abuse, that the quashing of the subpoena and exclusion of certain evidence were proper, the victim's safe house interview was admissible as a prior consistent statement, and the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated (paras 7-51).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment after the Defendant filed his notice of alibi defense.
• Whether the district court properly quashed the subpoena for the victim advocate.
• Whether the district court erred in excluding the Defendant's notice of alibi and the motion to amend the indictment from evidence.
• Whether the district court properly admitted the victim's safe house interview under Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b) NMRA.
• Whether the Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated (paras 7, 18, 25, 32, 35).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to convict the Defendant of three counts of CSC of a minor was affirmed (para 52).

Reasons

• The district court did not err in granting the State's motion to amend the indictment as it did not prejudice the Defendant's substantial rights and was within the court's discretion under Rule 5-204(C) NMRA (paras 7-17).
  The quashing of the victim advocate's subpoena was upheld because the conversation in question was considered work product, and there were no documented notes to disclose (paras 18-24).
  The exclusion of the Defendant's notice of alibi and the State's motion to amend from evidence was not an abuse of discretion, as the district court took judicial notice of the relevant facts without causing confusion to the jury (paras 25-31).
  The admission of the victim's safe house interview as a prior consistent statement was proper, as it rebutted an implied charge of recent fabrication by the Defendant and was substantially similar to the victim's trial testimony (paras 32-34).
  The Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, considering the length of delay, reasons for delay, the Defendant's assertion of his right, and lack of demonstrated prejudice (paras 35-51).