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

• Armando Vasquez (Defendant) was accused of criminal sexual contact with a minor, D.U., among other charges. The State considered D.U. and her mother critical witnesses due to the mother's observation of physical injuries and presence during an acknowledgment of abuse by the Defendant. However, the State faced difficulties securing their cooperation for interviews and trial, with both witnesses evading contact and subpoenas. Despite multiple attempts to engage them, including direct approaches and subpoenas, neither appeared for scheduled interviews or the trial (paras 3-9).

Procedural History

• State v. Vasquez, 2014-NMSC-010: The Supreme Court remanded the case to consider it on its merits (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that it complied with its duty to make D.U. available for interview at her high school and that her refusal to participate, not the State's actions, rendered her unavailable. Requested a less severe alternative than exclusion to determine why the witnesses had not appeared in response to the subpoenas (paras 10-11).
• Defendant: Made an oral motion to exclude D.U. and her mother as witnesses due to the State's failure to produce them for interviews, arguing that proceeding to trial without interviewing D.U. would result in unfair prejudice (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's failure to make critical witnesses available for pre-trial interviews justified the exclusion of their testimony (para 10-11).
• Whether the State acted in willful disregard of its legal duties under the rules of procedure and governing law (paras 14-26).

Disposition

• The district court granted the Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of D.U. and her mother due to the State's failure to make them available for interviews, and denied the State's motion for a show cause hearing as untimely (para 12).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the State willfully failed to discharge its duty to timely prosecute the case by not securing the witnesses' cooperation and not employing legal methods to ensure their presence for interviews or testimony. The State's actions were deemed to have been undertaken in bad faith, given its knowledge of the witnesses' uncooperation and its obstruction of the Defendant's attempts to conduct interviews. The court concluded that the State's conduct was sufficiently culpable to justify the exclusion of the witnesses' testimony and that the Defendant was prejudiced by the State's failure to provide timely and adequate discovery. The court emphasized the importance of the prosecution's duty to progress a case to trial and the prejudicial impact of the State's inaction on the Defendant's ability to prepare for trial (paras 14-26).