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 two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor, which allegedly occurred seven years prior to the victim's report to the police. The Defendant, a non-English speaker, denied the allegations and underwent a polygraph examination, which he intended to use in his defense. The district court excluded the testimony of the Defendant's polygraph expert due to the Defendant's failure to provide a translated and transcribed version of the Spanish-language audio recording of the polygraph examination to the prosecution thirty days before trial, as required by Rule 11-707(D) NMRA (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of his polygraph expert due to a failure to provide a translated and transcribed version of the polygraph examination's audio recording, claiming this decision prejudiced his defense (paras 1, 20-21).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the district court's decision to exclude the polygraph examiner's testimony, arguing that the Defendant's failure to provide a transcription and translation of the polygraph examination's audio recording violated the spirit of Rule 11-707(D) and hindered cross-examination (paras 12-13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of the Defendant's polygraph expert based on the Defendant's failure to provide a translated and transcribed version of the polygraph examination's audio recording to the prosecution thirty days before trial.
• Whether the exclusion of the polygraph examiner's testimony constituted harmless error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the polygraph examiner's testimony and that the error was not harmless (para 23).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Yohalem writing the opinion, and Judges Bogardus and Duffy concurring, found that Rule 11-707(D) does not require the proponent of polygraph evidence to produce a transcription and translation of the audio recording of the examination. The court concluded that the district court's interpretation of Rule 11-707(D) was incorrect and that the exclusion of the polygraph examiner's testimony deprived the Defendant of a critical defense witness, significantly impairing his ability to mount a defense in a trial that hinged entirely on credibility. The appellate court determined there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the polygraph evidence been admitted, thus the error was not harmless and warranted a reversal and remand for a new trial (paras 20-37).