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 one count of Criminal Sexual Penetration of a Minor, two counts of Criminal Sexual Contact of a Minor, and one count of Voyeurism (Victim under 18). The Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court infringed on his Sixth Amendment right by excluding certain evidence and limiting testimony, which he claimed would have questioned the Victim's veracity.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court infringed on his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by excluding evidence of the Victim's sexual orientation and recordings of her safehouse interviews, and by limiting the testimony of his expert. Contended that this evidence was crucial for questioning the Victim's veracity and motive to fabricate accusations.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the district court's rulings should be affirmed because the Defendant did not file a motion seeking admission of the evidence under New Mexico’s rape shield laws, and even if such a motion had been filed, it should have been denied due to the evidence being irrelevant or its probative value being outweighed by its potential for prejudice.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court infringed on the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by excluding certain evidence.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting expert opinion testimony during the State’s rebuttal.
• Whether the district court committed cumulative error affecting the fairness of the trial.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the district court's decision was affirmed.

Reasons

• MEDINA, Judge (with KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge and KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge concurring): The court found that the exclusion of evidence regarding the Victim's sexual orientation and the recordings of her safehouse interviews did not deprive the Defendant of his constitutional right to present a defense. The court held that the evidence was not necessary for the Defendant to argue that the Victim fabricated her accusation and was therefore irrelevant (paras 4-13). The court also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony during the State’s rebuttal, as the testimony did not exceed the scope of permissible rebuttal testimony and was relevant to the issues raised during the trial (paras 21-25). Finally, the court concluded that no cumulative error occurred because the individual rulings challenged by the Defendant did not constitute reversible error and did not cumulatively deprive the Defendant of a fair trial (para 26).