State v. Sena

192 P.3d 1198 (N.M. 2008) (2008-NMSC-053) · Supreme Court of New Mexico · August 26, 2008 · No. No. 30,540

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and held that sufficient evidence supported two convictions for criminal sexual contact of a minor. The court also held that evidence of the defendant's grooming-related conduct was admissible under Rules 11-404(B) and 11-403 to show sexual intent, and that expert testimony was not required. The case was remanded for consideration of issues not previously addressed by the Court of Appeals.

Holdings

  1. The trial court properly denied Sena's directed-verdict motion because the child's testimony, viewed as a whole and with reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict, provided substantial evidence from which a rational jury could find that Sena touched her twice during the charging period.
  2. The grooming evidence was admissible under Rule 11-404(B) because it was relevant to the material, non-character issue of Sena's sexual intent in touching the child.
  3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the grooming evidence under Rule 11-403 because its probative value concerning Sena's sexual intent was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
  4. Expert testimony was not required where lay testimony was offered to show sexual intent through behavior within common knowledge and experience, rather than to establish a scientific or specialized theory of grooming.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court properly denied Sena's directed-verdict motion when the child's inconsistent testimony could support an inference that he touched her more than once during the charging period.
  2. Whether the grooming evidence was admissible under Rule 11-404(B) to prove Sena's intent rather than his character or propensity.
  3. Whether the grooming evidence should nevertheless have been excluded under Rule 11-403 because its unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value.
  4. Whether expert testimony was required before the grooming evidence could be submitted to the jury.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (10)

  • State v. Robinson, 94 N.M. 693, 696, 616 P.2d 406, 409 (1980)(followed)
  • State v. Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 5, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515(followed)
  • State v. Graham, 2005-NMSC-004, ¶¶ 7, 13, 137 N.M. 197, 109 P.3d 285(followed)
  • State v. Morales, 2000-NMCA-046, ¶ 8, 129 N.M. 141, 2 P.3d 878(followed)
  • State v. Kerby, 2007-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 25-26, 141 N.M. 413, 156 P.3d 704(followed)
  • State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 41, 48, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829(followed)
  • State v. Otto, 2007-NMSC-012, ¶¶ 14, 16, 141 N.M. 443, 157 P.3d 8(followed)
  • State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 22, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828(followed)
  • State v. Boyett, 2008-NMSC-030, ¶ 28, 144 N.M. 184, 185 P.3d 355(followed)
  • State v. Sena, 2007-NMCA-115, ¶¶ 8-10, 14-27, 35-40, 142 N.M. 677, 168 P.3d 1101(reversed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…