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, Lavel Folks, who was convicted of several violent offenses against his girlfriend, D.B. (Victim), including criminal sexual penetration, aggravated battery against a household member, and aggravated burglary. The offenses stemmed from two separate incidents. The first incident occurred on February 17, 2018, where the Defendant physically and sexually assaulted the Victim at her apartment. The second incident happened six weeks later when the Defendant broke into the Victim's apartment through a window and physically assaulted her again. A friend of the Victim, Gina Taylor, was present during the second assault and had also received a text message from the Victim immediately after the first assault detailing the abuse (paras 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court should have excluded Gina Taylor as a witness due to the State’s inability to produce her for pretrial interviews until the first day of trial. Contended that the district court violated his due process rights by denying his request to obtain Taylor’s mental health records for impeachment purposes and by refusing to grant a continuance to obtain an expert witness to impeach Taylor’s credibility. Argued that the district court erred in admitting the text message sent by the Victim to Taylor on the night of the first assault as it did not meet the foundation for hearsay exceptions. Asserted that the district court failed to follow proper procedures after defense counsel raised Defendant’s competency on the second day of trial (paras 3, 5-6, 9, 13, 19, 23).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that despite difficulties, they were diligent in trying to obtain Taylor’s interview before the trial and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Taylor to testify. Argued that the Defendant failed to provide a reasonable basis for obtaining Taylor’s medical records and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant’s request for a continuance. Maintained that the text message was properly admitted under hearsay exceptions and that the district court correctly ruled on the competency issue without halting the trial (paras 7, 10, 14, 20, 24).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to exclude Gina Taylor as a witness.
• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's due process rights by denying his request to obtain Taylor’s mental health records for impeachment purposes.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to grant a continuance to obtain an expert witness to impeach Taylor’s credibility.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting the text message sent by the Victim to Taylor on the night of the first assault.
• Whether the district court failed to follow proper procedures after defense counsel raised the Defendant’s competency on the second day of trial.

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions (para 1).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge (with MEDINA, Judge and HENDERSON, Judge concurring): The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Taylor to testify, despite the Defendant's motion to exclude her based on pretrial interview issues. The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant’s request for Taylor’s mental health records, as the Defendant failed to make a threshold showing that the records would provide information material to the defense. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the Defendant’s motion for a continuance to obtain an expert witness, applying the factors from State v. Torres. Regarding the admission of the Victim’s text message, the Court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion as the message was properly admitted under hearsay exceptions. Lastly, the Court concluded that the district court did not err in its handling of the competency issue raised during the trial, as the Defendant had not presented sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to his competency (paras 4-24).