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 contact of a minor, specifically his daughter, who reported incidents occurring when she was between six and nine years old. These incidents included the Defendant applying ointment to her genital area and rubbing his penis on her back while in the shower. The family had lived in Bernalillo County during the times these incidents were reported to have occurred, with a period in Sandoval County in between. The Defendant argued that his actions were misconstrued and lacked sexual intent, highlighting the child's potential misinterpretation due to previous sexual abuse by another individual (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• First trial: Resulted in a dismissal of five counts by directed verdict and a mistrial due to jury disagreement on the remaining four counts (para 3).
• Second trial: Retried on the remaining four counts, leading to the conviction under appeal (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by admitting evidence of uncharged bad acts under Rule 11-404(B) NMRA and Rule 11-403 NMRA, claiming this evidence was propensity evidence and more prejudicial than probative. Also contended that the district court erred by allowing a qualified expert to offer an opinion beyond the scope of the expert’s qualified expertise (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that evidence of the Defendant's uncharged conduct was admissible under Rule 11-404(B)(2) as proof of the Defendant’s intent, asserting that the Defendant's defense at the first trial was that the charged incidents involved normal parenting and lacked sexual intent (paras 5, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged bad acts under Rule 11-404(B) NMRA and Rule 11-403 NMRA.
• Whether the district court erred by allowing a qualified expert to offer an opinion beyond the scope of the expert’s qualified expertise.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 31).

Reasons

• Majority Opinion (Wechsler, J., with Bustamante, J. concurring): Found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the uncharged Sandoval County incident under Rule 11-404(B) and Rule 11-403, as it was relevant to the material issue of the Defendant's intent. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision regarding the expert testimony, concluding any error in admitting this testimony was harmless (paras 11-30).
  Dissenting Opinion (Garcia, J.): Dissented based on the prejudicial impact of the mid-trial admission of the Sandoval County evidence, which was initially ruled inadmissible. Argued that this reversal, based on the defense's opening statement, was unfair to the Defendant and extended Rule 11-404(B)(2)'s "intent" exception beyond previously identified circumstances, effectively undermining the protections provided under Rule 11-404(B)(1) against using other bad acts evidence (paras 33-36).