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 of second-degree criminal sexual penetration resulting in personal injury. The conviction was based on the testimony of a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) who stated that the absence of observable injuries to the Victim was consistent with the reported sexual assault (para 1).
Procedural History
- District Court of Cibola County: Convicted the Defendant of second-degree criminal sexual penetration.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by allowing the SANE to testify that the absence of injuries was consistent with the Victim's account, claiming it improperly bolstered the Victim's credibility, exceeded the SANE's expertise, and was irrelevant (para 3).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in admitting the SANE's testimony regarding the absence of observable injuries as consistent with the Victim's account of the assault.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 9).
Reasons
Per Henderson J. (Attrep and Baca JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the admission of expert testimony is within the district court's discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion (para 2). The SANE was qualified to testify as an expert, and her testimony did not improperly comment on the Victim's credibility, as she did not state that the Victim was telling the truth or that the symptoms were caused by sexual abuse (paras 4-6). The testimony was relevant because it helped the jury assess the likelihood of the assault occurring, given the absence of injuries, which is permissible under New Mexico law (paras 6 and 8). The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the SANE's testimony (para 9).