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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- Whether the grooming evidence was admissible under Rule 11-404(B) to prove Sena's intent rather than his character or propensity.
- Whether the grooming evidence should nevertheless have been excluded under Rule 11-403 because its unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value.
- 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 PDFLoading document…