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) and bribery of a witness. The case involved issues regarding the disclosure of the victim's mental health records, the mention of the Defendant's HIV status during the trial, and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel related to not striking a juror with a potential bias due to professional acquaintance with one of the investigating officers.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, William C. Birdsall, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by refusing to disclose the victim's mental health records, which prejudiced the defense's ability to challenge the victim's perception, memory, and credibility. Contended that the mention of his HIV status should have been excluded as it was irrelevant and prejudicial. Additionally, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to strike a juror acquainted with an investigating officer.
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to disclose the victim's mental health records.
• Whether the district court erred by not excluding mention of the Defendant's HIV status.
• Whether the Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel due to failure to strike a juror with a potential bias.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, convicting the Defendant for CSP III and bribery of a witness.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Roderick T. Kennedy and Michael E. Vigil concurring:
  Regarding the Victim’s Mental Health Records: The district court conducted an in camera review of the victim's mental health records and granted all relief sought by the Defendant. The appellate court found no error in the district court's handling of the privileged information and concluded that the non-disclosure did not affect the Defendant's ability to prepare a defense or cross-examine the evidence at trial (paras 3-6).
  Regarding the Defendant’s HIV Status: The appellate court agreed with the district court that the Defendant's HIV status was relevant to the issue of the victim's consent and was carefully limited in its introduction at trial. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in this decision (para 7).
  Motion to Amend the Docketing Statement: The appellate court denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, as the Defendant did not make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance that would warrant a remand for an evidentiary hearing (paras 8-11).