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

• In 2011, the Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor and was sentenced to an 18-year sentence, with all but two years suspended, followed by a five-to-twenty-year probationary term. In 2018, the State sought to revoke the Defendant's probation, alleging he violated its conditions by failing to report his daughter's autism diagnosis and committing criminal sexual penetration against her. At the revocation hearing, the daughter did not testify, and the State presented evidence through other witnesses about the daughter's condition and the alleged crime. The Defendant denied committing criminal sexual penetration against his daughter (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County: The district court revoked the Defendant's probation based on evidence presented at the hearing, including testimony about the daughter's condition and the alleged crime, but rejected the State's contention that the Defendant also violated his probation by failing to report his daughter's disability (para 11).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the Defendant violated his probation conditions by omitting his daughter's autism diagnosis when requesting permission for her stay and by committing criminal sexual penetration against her. Presented evidence through testimony of various witnesses, including the daughter's mother and a sexual assault nurse examiner, to support the allegation of sexual penetration (paras 3-9).
• Defendant-Appellant: Denied committing criminal sexual penetration against his daughter and argued that his due process right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated at the revocation hearing, as he was not allowed to confront his daughter or the crime lab analyst who reported DNA evidence (paras 1, 4, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's due process right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated at the probation revocation hearing when he was not allowed to confront his daughter or the crime lab analyst (para 12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order revoking the Defendant's probation and remanded for any further proceedings that might be necessary, including a new revocation hearing if the State requests one (para 25).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Ives, J., with Medina, J., and Henderson, J., concurring, found that the Defendant had a due process right to confront his daughter based on the precedent set in State v. Guthrie. The court concluded that the evidence presented at the hearing was not reliable enough to overcome the strong presumption in favor of confrontation, especially given the central role of the daughter's hearsay statements to the ultimate determination of whether the Defendant violated his probation by committing a new crime. The court also rejected the State's argument that the need to protect the daughter from further emotional harm constituted good cause for dispensing with confrontation. The court emphasized that its holding was narrow, addressing only the complete denial of the Defendant's request for confrontation and not the type or scope of cross-examination that would satisfy due process (paras 13-24).