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 inappropriately touching his daughter, T.L., in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when she was five or six years old, during visits to his apartment. The abuse was reported years later by T.L. to a therapist, leading to charges against the Defendant for criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The Defendant sought to introduce evidence of T.L.'s alleged sexual abuse by others and challenged the admission of expert testimony attributing T.L.'s PTSD diagnosis to the abuse she reported by him. The Defendant also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 2-6, 8-11).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued for the exclusion of evidence related to alleged sexual abuse of T.L. by others as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. Supported the admission of expert testimony attributing T.L.'s PTSD diagnosis to the sexual abuse she reported by the Defendant (paras 7, 10, 23).
• Defendant-Appellant (Joseph Cummings): Contended that evidence of T.L.'s sexual abuse by others was relevant to his defense and challenged the exclusion of this evidence. Argued that the admission of expert testimony attributing T.L.'s PTSD to the abuse reported by him was plain error. Claimed ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to subpoena a detective and timely disclose a defense expert (paras 8, 11, 16, 23, 29-32).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding evidence of sexual abuse of T.L. by others.
• Whether the admission of expert testimony attributing T.L.’s PTSD diagnosis to the sexual abuse she reported was plain error.
• Whether the Defendant’s counsel provided ineffective assistance (paras 1, 16, 23, 29).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor (para 34).

Reasons

• YOHALEM, J., ATTREP, J., HENDERSON, J. (Concurring): The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's exclusion of evidence regarding alleged sexual abuse of T.L. by others, as the Defendant did not provide evidence to show such incidents occurred or were relevant to the charges against him. The Court also determined that the admission of expert testimony attributing T.L.'s PTSD to the abuse she reported was not plain error, noting the limited nature of the testimony and its context within the trial. Lastly, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not make a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, as he failed to demonstrate how the alleged errors by his counsel resulted in prejudice to his defense (paras 16-33).