Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

In a decision earlier this year, the New Mexico Court of Appeals held in State v. Montoya that a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated when the lower court prevented him from questioning the victim about their prior sexual history together.

State v. Montoya presented an interesting set of undisputed facts. The defendant and the victim were in an altercation that turned physical. He was subsequently convicted of several charges including kidnapping and aggravated battery. The only dispute in the case was over the defendant's intent. The defendant claimed his actions were not intended to harm the victim but to initiate "make-up sex" which the couple often engaged in after an argument.

During the trial, the defendant tried to introduce evidence of their sexual relationship--including their tendency to use sexual relations as a dispute resolution technique--to show its influence on his state of mind at the time of the incident. Relying on New Mexico's Rape Shield Rule, the court denied his motion to introduce the evidence.

Enacted by the New Mexico Legislature in 1975, the Rape Shield Rule prevents the admission of opinion or reputation evidence regarding the victim's past sexual conduct. The Rule only permits admission in cases where the evidence is material to the case and where its prejudicial nature does not outweigh its probative value. This is a crucial evidentiary distinction that hinges on the discretion of the judge.

Although the defendant was unable to introduce this specific evidence, he was able to introduce evidence supporting his theory. In fact, the victim confirmed that she was not in fear during the encounter and explained that the defendant's action were an attempt to get her to consent to sex. Regardless of the introduction of this evidence, the defendant claimed the court violated his right to confront the witness.

In a criminal prosecution, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution--and a similar provision in the New Mexico Constitution--guarantees the accused the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." These Confrontation Clause protections, however, are not absolute. Instead, trial courts retain wide discretion to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination to prevent harassment, confusion, or repetition.

The court in Montoya examined a number of factors to determine if the exclusion in this case was within the acceptable parameters. Based largely on the fact that the victim had introduced similar evidence, the court determined that the probative value of the new evidence had substantially diminished and would have been inflammatory and repetitive. In other words, the court determined that the value of the information to the jury in reaching a verdict was not nearly as strong as the information's potential to mislead them.

Accordingly, this recent holding by the New Mexico Appeals Court serves to further outline what protections are--and are not--required by the Confrontation Clause in light of what has come to be known as the Rape Shield Rule.

The admission and/or suppression of evidence in a case is critical to the defense of criminal charges. It is important to discuss these matters with your criminal defense attorney.

Related Reading:
Confrontation And Victim Identifications
6th Amendment Confrontation Rights in New Mexico Domestic Violence Cases

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to confront witnesses that offer testimony against them. In accordance with the Confrontation Clause, testimonial evidence is inadmissible in court against a defendant unless the defendant is able to cross-examine the witness giving the testimony. However, a recent U.S. Supreme Court case and a subsequent New Mexico Supreme Court case have both held that an identification of the perpetrator by a mortally-wounded shooting victim close to the time of the shooting is not testimonial evidence and therefore not in violation of the Confrontation Clause.

In Michigan v. Bryant police called to a gas station found the Victim mortally shot. The Victim identified the Defendant as his shooter before he died. At the Defendant's trial, police officers at the scene testified about the Victim's statements identifying the Defendant as his shooter. The Defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder, but the Supreme Court of Michigan reversed the conviction on the grounds that the officer's testimony of what the Victim said violated the Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.

The Supreme Court in Michigan v. Bryant held that the Victim's description and identification of the shooter were not testimonial evidence and therefore not in violation of the Confrontation Clause. The Court stated that police interrogations are testimonial if there was no ongoing emergency and the primary purpose of the interrogation was to determine or establish previous events with the objective of later using those statements in a criminal prosecution. However, police interrogation is not testimonial if the primary purpose for the interrogation is to facilitate police response to an ongoing emergency.

The Court stated that to evaluate the primary purpose of a police interrogation, courts must evaluate (1) the circumstances of the encounter between the police and individual that gave a statement, including the existence of an ongoing emergency, and (2) the statements and actions of both the individual and police.

For the first part of the inquiry, where the questioning took place and whether it occurred during or after the emergency are relevant. If the emergency is ongoing, it is likely that the primary purpose of an inquiry is to put an end to a dangerous or threatening situation; if the inquiry occurs after the danger is eliminated, it is more likely that the purpose of the interrogation is to establish past facts in preparation for criminal prosecution. The formality of the questioning may also be telling. While formality may indicate that the emergency is not ongoing, informality does not always, but may, indicate that the emergency is ongoing.

In Michigan v. Bryant the Court found that the Victim's identification was not testimonial because its primary purpose was to meet an ongoing threat to police and the public. Earlier this year, the New Mexico Supreme Court came to the same conclusion in a similar case in State of New Mexico v. Largo.

In State v. Largo, the victim was allegedly shot by her ex-husband. A neighbor responded and called 911. Through the neighbor, the victim identified her ex-husband as the shooter to the 911 operator and later to a police officer who responded to the scene. Both the 911 recording and the officer's testimony of what the victim said were admitted as evidence and the Defendant was convicted of murder.

On appeal, the Defendant argued that the 911 call and the officer's testimony violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. For the same reasons as the Supreme Court in Bryant, the New Mexico Supreme Court found that since the Defendant was armed and at large, the victim's statements were not testimonial and obtained instead to meet an ongoing emergency. For this reason, the statements were allowed into evidence and the conviction was upheld.

If you are faced with criminal charges, it is important to understand your rights and defenses. Understanding issues such as the confrontation clause is very important to your defense. These issues are can be quite complicated depending on the circumstances. As such, it is highly advisable that you seek the guidance of a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Related Reading:
Pleas of Co-Defendants: Admissability and Harmless Error in New Mexico
Defendants Have the Right to Pretrial Interview of State's Expert Witnesses But...
6th Amendment Confrontation Rights in New Mexico Domestic Violence Cases

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys