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 contact of a minor (CSCM) in the second and third degrees by a person in authority and intimidation of a witness. The Defendant observed the minor, A.B., engaging in oral sex with a teenage male and was accused by A.B. of sexual abuse after he allegedly threatened to report her behavior to her parents.

Procedural History

• State v. Arvizo (Arvizo I), No. 33,697, 2016 WL 3970910: The Court of Appeals held the State presented sufficient evidence for the conviction of intimidating a witness but failed to present sufficient evidence for CSCM convictions.
• State v. Arvizo (Arvizo II), 2018-NMSC-026, 417 P.3d 384: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated the CSCM convictions, and remanded the case to address remaining appellate issues.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State violated his right to a speedy trial, failed to present sufficient evidence for CSCM convictions, erred in excluding evidence under the rape shield rule, improperly limited impeachment of A.B., erred in permitting expert testimony, provided an inadequate remedy for destroyed evidence, committed prosecutorial misconduct, and other errors including the trial judge's recusal without basis and cumulative errors.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Defended the convictions and the trial court's rulings on evidence admissibility, expert testimony, and procedural matters, arguing that the evidence supported the convictions and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in its rulings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding evidence under the rape shield rule.
• Whether the district court improperly limited the Defendant’s ability to impeach A.B.
• Whether the district court erred in permitting Dr. Ornelas to testify regarding A.B.’s medical examination.
• Whether the district court provided an adequate remedy for the destruction of evidence.
• Whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by referring to A.B. as a “victim” in its rebuttal argument.
• Whether the trial judge erred in recusing himself prior to sentencing without stating a basis for his recusal.
• Whether cumulative error requires reversal of the convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence.

Reasons

• Rape Shield Rule: The court found the district court did not err in excluding evidence of A.B.'s prior sexual conduct, as the Defendant failed to demonstrate relevance to a material issue (paras 4-8).
  Impeachment of A.B.: The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the Defendant to confront A.B. with her out-of-court statements before impeaching her with those statements (paras 9-15).
  Dr. Ornelas’s Expert Testimony: The court concluded the district court did not err in admitting Dr. Ornelas's testimony as it was probative of the State’s intended inference and not unfairly prejudicial (paras 16-19).
  Chouinard Remedy: The court found the district court did not abuse its discretion in its remedy for the lost evidence of the Defendant's police interview (paras 21-27).
  Reference to A.B. as “Victim”: The court determined that the State’s reference to A.B. as a “victim” during rebuttal argument did not deprive the Defendant of a fair trial (paras 28-32).
  Recusal: The court declined to remand for resentencing or supplementing the record regarding the trial judge’s recusal, presuming the judge acted in conformity with his duty (paras 33-35).
  Cumulative Error: The court concluded that as there was no error in the Defendant’s case, the claim of cumulative error was without merit (para 36).