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 case involves the Defendant, Robert Kelsey, who was convicted for third-degree criminal sexual contact of his four-year-old daughter. The incident involved the child being coerced to touch the Defendant's penis while he masturbated. The child's testimony about the sexual abuse was captured in a videotaped deposition, which was admitted at trial in lieu of live testimony, based on a ruling that live testimony would cause the child undue hardship and emotional trauma.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the child's videotaped deposition was admissible under Rule 5-504, asserting that live testimony would cause the child undue hardship and emotional trauma. The State also contended that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction.
• Defendant-Appellant (Robert Kelsey): Claimed that the admission of the videotaped deposition violated Rule 5-504 and his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. He also argued that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and raised several evidentiary errors.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting the child's videotaped deposition under Rule 5-504 and thereby violated the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Whether the Defendant's conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether the district court made several evidentiary errors.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge ATTREP, with Judges HANISEE and BOGARDUS concurring, provided the following reasons:
  Regarding the Videotaped Deposition: The Court found that the district court did not err in admitting the videotaped deposition under Rule 5-504, as substantial evidence supported the finding that live testimony would cause the child undue hardship and emotional trauma (paras 2-12). The Court also determined that the Defendant's right to confrontation was not violated, as he was present and had an opportunity to cross-examine the child during the deposition (paras 13-15).
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed criminal sexual contact of a minor. The Court rejected the Defendant's arguments that the evidence was ambiguous and that the child was coached (paras 16-18).
  Remaining Claims of Error: The Court found that the remaining claims of error regarding the admission of certain testimony at trial did not warrant reversal. It held that even if there were errors, the Defendant did not demonstrate how these errors prejudiced his case (paras 19).