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 of a minor and criminal sexual contact of a minor. The victim identified the Defendant as the perpetrator during her preliminary hearing testimony, and a victim advocate confirmed this identification. The State made efforts to secure the victim's presence at trial, including calling her the day before trial and sending an advocate to transport her to the courthouse, but she failed to appear.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator, challenged the admissibility of the victim's preliminary hearing testimony, and sought to amend the docketing statement to advance a claim of fundamental error regarding the prosecutor's closing statements.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Defended the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of the victim's preliminary hearing testimony under Rule 11-804(B)(1) NMRA, and opposed the Defendant's claim of fundamental error related to the prosecutor's closing statements.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the Defendant's identity as the perpetrator.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting the victim's preliminary hearing testimony.
• Whether the Defendant should be allowed to amend his docketing statement to advance a claim of fundamental error based on the prosecutor's closing statements.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, James J. Wechsler, and Linda M. Vanzi, provided the following reasons for their decision:
  Identity as the Perpetrator: The Court found that the victim's identification of the Defendant, supported by a victim advocate's confirmation, was sufficient evidence to establish the Defendant's identity as the perpetrator (para 3).
  Admissibility of Preliminary Hearing Testimony: The Court held that the district court did not err in admitting the victim's preliminary hearing testimony. It was determined that the State made appropriate efforts to secure the victim's presence at trial, justifying the finding of her unavailability. Furthermore, the Court applied a per se rule that preliminary hearing testimony is admissible at trial if the witness is unavailable, and the motive for cross-examination at the preliminary hearing is similar to that at trial (paras 4-5).
  Claim of Fundamental Error: The Court rejected the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to include a claim of fundamental error regarding the prosecutor's closing statements. It reasoned that in the absence of evidence about the reasons for the victim's failure to appear, the jury could only speculate, which would have been improper. Thus, the claim of fundamental error was deemed not viable (para 6).