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 one count of interference with communications and two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), stemming from allegations of sexual abuse of his daughter. The State initially charged the Defendant with sixteen felony and misdemeanor counts related to the alleged sexual abuse of four of his children. Prior to trial, the State filed a nolle prosequi on three counts. After a trial, the jury found the Defendant guilty of two counts of CSCM of one child, EO, and one count of interference with communications, while either acquitting or not reaching a verdict on the remaining ten counts.

Procedural History

• State v. Ochoa, 2014-NMCA-065, 327 P.3d 1102: The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions for violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
• State v. Ochoa, 2017-NMSC-031, 406 P.3d 505: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' 2014 decision, reinstating Defendant’s convictions.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court denied his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding expert testimony on his behalf while allowing the State's expert, erred in denying his motion for a severance, failed to disclose a recantation by EO, erred in refusing to instruct the jury on unlawfulness as an element of CSCM, and failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions for CSCM due to the lack of instruction on unlawfulness.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings regarding expert testimony, the motion for a severance, and the jury instructions on unlawfulness. The State also argued that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue of EO's alleged recantation for appeal and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for CSCM.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court denied the Defendant his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding his expert testimony and allowing the State's expert.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion for a severance.
• Whether the State failed to disclose EO’s recantation, constituting a Brady violation.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on unlawfulness as an element of CSCM.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for CSCM in the absence of jury instruction on unlawfulness.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for CSCM and interference with communications.

Reasons

• VIGIL, Judge (ZAMORA and GALLEGOS, Judges concurring): The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the Defendant's expert testimony because the expert was not qualified to testify on safehouse interview techniques, a key issue in the case. The Court also held that the district court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion for a severance, as the Defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the joinder of offenses. Regarding the alleged Brady violation, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not preserve this issue for appeal. On the issue of jury instructions, the Court determined that the lawfulness of the Defendant's actions was not in issue, thus the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on unlawfulness as an element of CSCM. Finally, the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for CSCM, as the jury instructions given were appropriate under the circumstances and substantial evidence supported the verdicts.