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

• During a birthday party at the victim's home, the defendant, who had been drinking heavily, was accused of criminal sexual contact with a minor (CSCM). The victim, a twelve-year-old girl, testified that while partially asleep on a couch, the defendant approached her, asked if she was okay, and then digitally penetrated her four times. The defendant testified that his only physical contact with the victim was to adjust her position on the couch and cover her with a blanket. A confrontation ensued between the defendant and the victim's parents, leading to the police being called (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• • Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the district court correctly excluded a photograph of the victim and testimony from a defense witness, asserting that these pieces of evidence were not relevant to the case (para 5).
• • Defendant-Appellant (James Bentley Newell): Contended that the district court erred in excluding a photograph of the victim, which he believed would challenge her credibility, and the testimony of Jessica Borrego, which was intended to demonstrate his character and behavior around children, even when intoxicated (paras 5-10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding a photograph of the victim and the testimony of a defense witness from the trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to exclude the photograph and testimony, holding that there was no abuse of discretion (para 15).

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Sutin, J., and Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the photograph of the victim and the testimony of Jessica Borrego. The photograph, which was not part of the record on appeal, was deemed speculative in challenging the victim's credibility since the victim had already admitted to misrepresenting her age and location on social media. The court ruled that the photograph was not relevant to the issues at trial, particularly since the defendant did not challenge the victim's age or the location of the alleged CSCM during the proceedings (paras 6-9).
  Regarding the exclusion of Jessica Borrego's testimony, the court determined that the testimony was inadmissible under Rule 11-404 and Rule 11-405 of the NMRA, as it pertained to specific instances of conduct that are not admissible unless the person's character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense. The court concluded that Borrego's testimony, which was based on her personal experiences with the defendant and not on his reputation or opinion of his character, did not meet the criteria for admissibility under the rules (paras 10-14).