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 accused of engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with the Victim, his neighbor, when she was about five or six years old. The Victim reported the Defendant's actions to her mother and later to law enforcement and an investigator from the New Mexico Public Defender Department. Based on her statements, the State charged the Defendant with two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor, among other charges (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by allowing an amendment to the indictment during the trial, refusing to require the State to disclose its expert’s assessment of Defendant’s polygraph examination result, and issuing a shotgun jury instruction (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that it was not required to disclose its expert’s findings because the expert was never listed as a witness and argued that the amendment to the indictment and the jury instructions were appropriate (paras 4, 8, 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in permitting the State to amend the indictment during the trial.
• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant access to evidence produced by the State’s polygraph expert.
• Whether the district court erred in asking the jury for a numerical breakdown and in directing the jury to continue its deliberations (paras 8, 14, 19).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all counts (paras 13, 18, 25).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring):

  Regarding the amendment of the indictment: The court found that criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) is a lesser-included offense of the criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM) originally charged. The amendment did not prejudice the Defendant’s substantial rights as he was on notice of the facts constituting the CSCM for which he was ultimately convicted (paras 8-13).

  Regarding the denial of access to the State’s polygraph expert’s evidence: The court concluded that the Defendant could not demonstrate the materiality of the evidence from the State’s polygraph expert, as there was no reasonable probability that a different outcome would have resulted had the evidence been provided to the Defendant. The evidence from Defendant's own polygraph expert was deemed sufficient, and additional information from the State’s expert would have been cumulative (paras 14-18).

  Regarding the jury instructions and numerical breakdown request: The court determined that the district court’s actions did not have a coercive effect on any potential holdout jurors to abandon their honest convictions. The inquiry into the numerical division of the jury and the decision to send the jury back for further deliberations were within the discretion of the jury and did not amount to a shotgun instruction or fundamental error (paras 19-25).