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 Defendant was convicted for criminal sexual penetration of his ex-wife’s granddaughter, J.K., when she was between six and eight years old. The allegations surfaced years after the alleged abuse, following the Defendant's contentious breakup with his ex-wife in November 2009. J.K., by then an adult, disclosed the abuse to her grandmother, leading to the Defendant's indictment in June 2015 (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Convicted the Defendant of one count of criminal sexual penetration in the first degree (child under thirteen) and sentenced him to twelve years of imprisonment (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the admission of evidence regarding uncharged sexual misconduct was improper and constituted a violation of Rule 11-404(B), contending it was used as propensity evidence. Additionally, the Defendant challenged the admission's prejudicial impact over its probative value under Rule 11-403 and claimed the error was not harmless (paras 6-7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct was admissible under Rule 11-404(B) for purposes other than showing propensity, specifically to prove the element of unlawfulness and to rebut the Defendant's theory of fabrication (paras 23, 28).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant's uncharged sexual misconduct under the abolished "lewd and lascivious disposition" exception to Rule 11-404(B) (para 9).
• Whether the admission of uncharged sexual misconduct evidence was permissible on grounds other than propensity, specifically to prove unlawfulness or to rebut a theory of fabrication (paras 23, 28).
• Whether the erroneous admission of the uncharged sexual misconduct evidence was harmless (para 31).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding the admission of uncharged sexual misconduct evidence was not permissible and the error was not harmless (para 36).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the abolition of the "lewd and lascivious disposition" exception in New Mexico, finding no viable non-propensity reason for the admission of the uncharged sexual misconduct evidence. The court concluded that the evidence's admission was not harmless, emphasizing the centrality of credibility in the case and the specific and concrete facts introduced by the erroneously admitted evidence. The court rejected the State's arguments that the evidence was admissible to prove unlawfulness or to rebut a theory of fabrication, noting that the Defendant's defense was a total denial of the allegations, which did not put the element of unlawfulness or the victim's credibility at issue in the manner suggested by the State (paras 9-30, 32-34).