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 December 2010, an eight-year-old girl, C.S., disclosed to her mother that Armando Perez had been sexually abusing her. Following these allegations, Perez was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse. A note suggesting C.S. might have been influenced by voices to blame Perez was later provided to a defense investigator, prompting a competency hearing for C.S. (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Grant County: The court found C.S. incompetent to testify, excluding her testimony and prior statements from the trial (para 7).
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, 2016-NMCA-033, 367 P.3d 909: The current appeal challenges the district court's ruling on C.S.'s competency and the exclusion of her testimony (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in finding C.S. incompetent to testify and erred in excluding her testimony from both the trial and the preliminary hearing (para 10).
• Defendant-Appellee (Perez): Suggested that the district court applied the correct legal standard, and sufficient evidence supported the court's ruling to exclude C.S.'s testimony (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling C.S. was incompetent to testify.
• Whether the case should be reassigned to a different district court judge upon remand (paras 1, 20).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling on C.S.'s competency, finding it applied an incorrect legal standard. The case was remanded for further proceedings, but reassignment to a different judge was deemed unnecessary (paras 24-25).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge (Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge, Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring): The court concluded that the district court misapplied the legal standard for determining witness competency, focusing improperly on C.S.'s ability to articulate the difference between truth and lies and her mental health issues, rather than on her basic understanding of truth versus lies and the consequences of lying. The appellate court found that, according to testimony, C.S. met the minimum standard for competency. The appellate court also addressed the State's request for reassignment on remand, finding no evidence of bias or impropriety by the district court judge that would warrant such action (paras 10-23).