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 case involves the State's attempt to use preliminary hearing testimony at trial for a witness, a child, who was declared unavailable. During the preliminary hearing, the child made incriminating statements against the Defendant. However, during a later deposition, the child testified she could not remember events relevant to the charges. The State sought to present the child's preliminary hearing testimony at trial, but the motion was denied by the judge due to concerns about excessive leading questions by the State's attorney and the violation of the Defendant's right to confront witnesses against him (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the Confrontation Clause and Rule 11-804(B)(1) NMRA did not bar the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony, as the witness was unavailable and the Defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness during the preliminary hearing (paras 3-4).
• Defendant-Appellee: The submissions of the Defendant-Appellee are not explicitly detailed in the decision, but it can be inferred that the Defendant-Appellee opposed the State's motion based on the district court's ruling which highlighted concerns about the admissibility of the preliminary hearing testimony due to excessive leading questions and the right to confront witnesses (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Confrontation Clause or Rule 11-804(B)(1) NMRA bars the admission of preliminary hearing testimony when the witness is unavailable at trial and the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness (para 3).
• Whether the district court erred in excluding the preliminary hearing testimony due to excessive leading questions on direct examination (para 5).

Disposition

• The district court’s denial of the State’s motion to introduce the preliminary hearing testimony was affirmed (para 9).

Reasons

• Judges Megan P. Duffy, Jacqueline R. Medina, and Zachary A. Ives: Agreed that while the Confrontation Clause and Rule 11-804(B)(1) NMRA did not bar the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony based on the witness's unavailability and the Defendant's opportunity to cross-examine, the district court did not err in excluding the testimony due to excessive leading questions by the State's attorney. The decision to exclude testimony based on the manner in which it was elicited (excessive leading questions) falls within the discretion of the district court. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling and noted that the State had not differentiated between parts of the testimony that might have been admissible without leading questions (paras 3-8).