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 charged with multiple counts related to criminal sexual contact of a minor, bribery of a witness, and false imprisonment based on allegations made by his two stepsisters. The case hinged on the credibility of the victims and the Defendant, with no physical evidence presented. Testimonies from a forensic interviewer and an investigating detective, both of whom opined on the credibility of the victims and the Defendant, played a crucial role in the trial's outcome.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Court Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the testimonies of the forensic interviewer and the investigating detective were admissible and supported the jury's guilty verdict.
• Defendant-Appellant (Hugh Smith): Contended that the testimonies of the forensic interviewer and the investigating detective improperly vouched for the credibility of the victims and disparaged the Defendant’s credibility, constituting plain error and warranting a reversal of the convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the testimonies of the forensic interviewer and the investigating detective, which opined on the credibility of the victims and the Defendant, constituted plain error requiring reversal of the convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Wray with Judges Hanisee and Yohalem concurring, found that the testimonies of the forensic interviewer and the investigating detective amounted to plain error because they improperly vouched for the credibility of the victims and disparaged the Defendant’s credibility. The Court emphasized that determining the credibility of witnesses is a core function of the jury and not the purview of expert witnesses. Despite the lack of objection from the Defendant's counsel at trial, the Court concluded that the admission of this testimony affected the Defendant's substantial rights to due process and a fair trial, especially given the pivotal role of credibility in the case. The Court also confirmed that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, allowing for a retrial on remand (paras 1-22).