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 charged with criminal sexual contact of a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and child abuse for incidents that allegedly occurred between October 2007 and December 2007. In February 2008, the alleged victim underwent a safe house interview, which was videotaped. The Defendant was not indicted until March 2010. The Defendant requested a copy of the safe house interview video for impeachment purposes but was informed that it could not be located. Consequently, the Defendant moved to suppress all evidence that the video could have been used to impeach.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Albert S. “Pat” Murdoch, District Judge: Granted Defendant Jennifer Wells’ motion to suppress evidence.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the district court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence due to the loss of the safe house interview video.
• Defendant-Appellee (Jennifer Wells): Argued for the suppression of all evidence that the lost video could have been used to impeach, citing the State's failure to preserve the video as prejudicial to the defense's ability to cross-examine the alleged victim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence based on the State's loss of the safe house interview video.
• Whether the loss of the video severely prejudiced the Defendant's ability to cross-examine the alleged victim.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court’s grant of Defendant’s motion to suppress and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court agreed with the district court on the first two factors of the three-part test from State v. Chouinard, acknowledging that the State breached its duty to preserve the video and that the video was material. However, the Court disagreed with the district court on the third factor, whether the Defendant was prejudiced by the loss of the video. The Court found that the Defendant would not be sufficiently prejudiced by the loss of the video because alternative sources for cross-examination were available, including detailed notes taken by Detective Don Roberts during the safe house interview. The Court concluded that suppression of all evidence that could have been impeached by the video was improper at this time, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice for both the defendant and the public.