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 serving a probation sentence for second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor. While on probation, he was accused of sexually assaulting his adult daughter, who has autism and functions at a first-grade level, during a visit to his home. The district court revoked his probation based on out-of-court statements made by his daughter during a forensic interview, which the Defendant could not cross-examine (paras 3-4, 6-7).
Procedural History
- District Court: Revoked Defendant's probation based on the alleged sexual assault of his daughter (para 14).
- State v. Godinez, 2022-NMCA-029: The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the Defendant's right to due process was violated by admitting testimonial evidence without an opportunity for cross-examination (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Petitioner: Argued that the district court had sufficient corroborating evidence to dispense with confrontation without violating due process and that the Court of Appeals misapplied the precedent set in State v. Guthrie (para 18).
- Defendant-Respondent: Contended that the admission of his daughter's out-of-court statements without an opportunity for cross-examination violated his right to due process (para 16).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's right to due process was violated by admitting testimonial evidence at his probation revocation hearing without an opportunity for cross-examination (para 1).
- Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied the precedent set in State v. Guthrie (para 1).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing that the Defendant's right to due process was violated (para 2).
Reasons
Per Zamora J. (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Bacon, and Vargas JJ. concurring):
The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the admission of the daughter's out-of-court statements without an opportunity for cross-examination violated the Defendant's right to due process. The Court disavowed the bright-line rule established by the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that due process in probation revocation hearings requires a case-by-case analysis of the need for confrontation. The Court found that the daughter's statements were testimonial and central to the State's case, and the corroborating evidence was insufficient to dispense with the need for confrontation. The Court also noted that the reasons for a witness's absence are generally irrelevant to the need-for-confrontation analysis (paras 2, 18-24, 25-39, 40-42).