328 P.3d 677
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Wayne Bent, leader of a northern New Mexico religious group, supervised members and hosted members, including L.S. and A.S., who visited him naked for alleged healing rituals.
- Bent was indicted on two counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor (CSCM) and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM); one CSCM acquittal and remaining convictions follow.
- A prior opinion was withdrawn and a new opinion issued after New Mexico Supreme Court remanded for consideration of remaining arguments.
- The prosecution’s theory treated the sexual contact as unlawful conduct; Bent did not dispute the acts but argued religious motive or coercion.
- On appeal Bent challenged exclusion of witnesses and photographs, cross-examination scope, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, RFRA-based defense, and cumulative error; the court affirmed all convictions.
- Statutory framework: CSCM and CDM prohibit unlawful touching of a minor; religious motive does not create a defense; RFRA arguments were rejected as meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in limiting witnesses and evidence | State contends discretion allowed; excluding cumulative witnesses was proper | Bent argues admissibility of more witnesses and photos was necessary for defense | No abuse of discretion; exclusions affirmed |
| Whether the State exceeded the scope of direct examination on cross-examination | State permitted to probe credibility and related inconsistencies | Cross-examination overstepped by focusing on authority and past statements | Cross-examination within court's discretion; did not amount to error |
| Whether the district court erred in denying proposed jury instructions | State argues standard definitions and lawfulness were properly instructed | Bent sought definitions and unlawful/intent defenses based on religious purpose | No reversible error; objections not preserved; no legal basis for requested instructions |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the CSCM and CDM convictions | State asserts substantial evidence of unlawful touching and coercion | Bent contends lack of proof of touching of unclothed intimate parts and intent | Sufficient evidence supported conviction for CSCM and CDM where evidence could rationally support juror inferences |
| Whether RFRA-based defense should have been raised and its effectiveness | RFRA defense would not alter legality under general applicability of statutes | Counsel should have raised RFRA to permit religious exception to intent | RFRA argument rejected; no ineffective assistance shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Downey, 145 N.M. 232 (2008) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- City of Albuquerque v. Westland Dev. Co., 121 N.M. 144 (1995-NMCA-136) (court may exclude cumulative evidence)
- State v. Marquez, 124 N.M. 409 (1998-NMCA-010) (discretion to exclude cumulative evidence)
- State v. Carter, 21 P. 271 (1915-NMSC-084) (scope of cross-examination)
- State v. Mireles, 84 N.M. 146 (1972-NMCA-105) (cross-examination impeachment and bias)
- Pierce, 1990-NMSC-049 (1990) (unlawful/without legal justification limits CSCM/CSPM)
- Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 284 P.3d 428 (2012-NMCA-086) (general applicability of laws; religion-neutral)
- Health Servs. Div. v. Temple Baptist Church, 112 P.3d 262 (1991-NMCA-055) (general applicability and religion-neutrality of regulations)