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 criminal sexual penetration in the second degree (child 13-16) and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The case involved the testimony of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE nurse) as an expert witness, which was contested by the Defendant.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in allowing a SANE nurse to testify as an expert witness, challenged the substance of the witness's testimony, claimed the district court erred in refusing to allow questioning about the credibility of the Victim's friend, argued the State should have been compelled to produce cell phone records, and claimed prosecutorial error for failing to disclose the nurse as an expert witness.
• Appellee (State): Defended the qualifications and testimony of the SANE nurse as an expert witness, maintained the appropriateness of the district court's rulings regarding witness credibility and the production of cell phone records, and contested the claim of prosecutorial error regarding the disclosure of the nurse as an expert witness.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing a SANE nurse to testify as an expert witness.
• Whether the district court erred in its rulings regarding witness credibility and the production of cell phone records.
• Whether the prosecutor committed reversible error by failing to disclose the nurse as an expert witness.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and affirmed the convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the opinion, and Judges James J. Wechsler and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, provided several reasons for their decision:
  Regarding the SANE nurse's testimony: The Court found that the nurse's credentials and training qualified her as an expert witness. The Court also rejected the Defendant's challenge to the substance of the witness's testimony, stating that the expert could testify that the victim had injuries consistent with sexual assault.
  On the issue of witness credibility: The Court upheld the district court's decision that the credibility of witnesses is to be determined by the jury, not by other witnesses.
  Concerning the production of cell phone records: The Court noted that the State was not in possession of these records and suggested that the Defendant could have sought to obtain them from the carrier.
  On the claim of prosecutorial error: The Court found that the nurse was properly disclosed as a SANE registered nurse on the State's witness list, dismissing the Defendant's claim of surprise regarding the nature of her testimony.