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 on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration (child under 13) and four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor (child under 13). During the trial, the Defendant presented a defense polygraph expert who testified that the Defendant was not being deceptive when he denied engaging in sexual conduct with the victim. The State sought to impeach this expert's testimony using a chart from an unrelated case, which had not been disclosed to the Defendant prior to its use in cross-examination (paras 1, 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Stan Whitaker, District Judge

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court should have excluded the chart used by the State to impeach the Defendant’s polygraph expert because it had not been disclosed to the Defendant (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Attempted to impeach the Defendant's polygraph expert using a chart that the expert had made in an unrelated case, arguing its relevance despite the lack of prior disclosure to the Defendant (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing the State to use a chart, which had not been disclosed to the Defendant, to impeach the Defendant’s polygraph expert (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of the Defendant on all counts (para 6).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the use of the undisclosed chart for impeachment purposes did not automatically exempt it from the duty of disclosure. However, it concluded that the State's use of the chart did not result in prejudice to the Defendant that would warrant reversal of the convictions. The Court differentiated this case from precedent by determining that the use of the chart did not directly undermine the Defendant's trial strategy in a manner that was prejudicial. Instead, the Court suggested that the jury could have interpreted the evidence as either supporting or not supporting the expert's conclusions about the Defendant's truthfulness. Given this, the Court held that any potential prejudice was too speculative to merit reversal of the convictions under the standard of review (paras 2-5).