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 for criminal sexual contact of a minor. The case involved an allegation made by the victim's mother of sexual contact by another person, which the victim herself never verified.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the exclusion of Detective Chadwell’s testimony, who investigated a previous allegation of criminal sexual contact that the victim had allegedly made against a different person, violated his right to confront the witnesses against him. The Defendant contended that the evidence was relevant or necessary to his defense.
• Appellee (State): Pointed out that it was not the victim but her mother who made the prior allegations, and the victim never disclosed any prior sexual activity. The State argued that there was no clear showing that the victim committed the prior acts, supporting the exclusion of the evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding the testimony of Detective Chadwell.
• Whether the exclusion of Detective Chadwell’s testimony violated the Defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him.
• Whether the evidence of prior allegations was relevant or necessary to the Defendant's defense.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to include additional issues was denied.
• The conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael E. Vigil with concurrence from Chief Judge Celia Foy Castillo and Judge James J. Wechsler, found that the district court did not err in excluding the testimony of Detective Chadwell. The Court reasoned that the Defendant failed to demonstrate how the evidence was relevant or necessary to his defense, as required by State v. Stephen F. and State v. Johnson. The Court also noted that the allegations made by the victim's mother and referred to CYFD did not constitute a clear showing that the victim committed the prior acts, as the victim herself never reported any sexual activity. The distinction between sexual conduct and evidence of fabrication, as discussed in Manlove v. Sullivan and Johnson, did not apply here because the Defendant was unable to show that the evidence was sought solely to attack the veracity of the victim’s allegations. The issues regarding instructing the jury on the meaning of “breast” were deemed abandoned as they were not addressed in the memorandum in response to the calendar notice.