State v. Bent
2013 NMCA 108
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Wayne Bent, leader of a religious community in northern New Mexico, 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) based on unclothed encounters with two teenage sisters, L.S. and A.S.; he was acquitted on one CSCM count and convicted on the remaining charges.
- Bent asserted the contacts were religiously motivated “spiritual healings” and argued that religious purpose negated criminality.
- On prior appeal this Court reversed on grand-jury-indictment grounds; the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed that reversal and remanded for consideration of Bent’s other arguments.
- On remand Bent raised multiple claims: exclusion of witnesses/photographs/audio, improper scope of cross-examination, erroneous denial of jury instructions (including a religious/unlawfulness theory), insufficiency/vagueness of the CSCM statute, ineffective assistance for not invoking New Mexico RFRA, prosecutorial misconduct, and cumulative error.
- The court reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, instructions de novo, and ineffective-assistance claims de novo; it found no reversible error and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of witnesses/photographs/audio | District court properly excluded cumulative or irrelevant evidence under Rule 11-403 | Exclusion prevented presentation of supportive community witnesses, photos, and soundtrack, prejudicing closing | No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to preserve some objections and did not show non-cumulativeness or prejudice |
| Scope of cross-examination | Cross-examining prior statements and bias was proper to impeach credibility | State exceeded scope of direct by probing authority, prior interviews, and video statements | Court found cross-exam appropriate to impeach; no abuse of discretion |
| Jury instructions (definition of “breast” and mistake/unlawfulness) | Jury should apply statutory elements as given | Requested definitions and a mistake-of-law/unlawfulness instruction based on religious purpose; claimed mistake of fact | Definition issue not preserved; mistake-of-law instruction improper (mistake of law not allowed); no religious exception to CSCM; court refused instructions |
| Sufficiency & vagueness of CSCM | Evidence (victim testimony, circumstances) sufficed for CSCM and CDM; statute is clear | Argued insufficient proof of touching of intimate parts, religious intent negates criminal intent, statute vague re: religious exception | Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, sufficient evidence supported convictions; no religious-intent exception; statute not unconstitutionally vague |
| Inadequate assistance for not raising RFRA | RFRA would not help because statutes are generally applicable and compelling interest/least restrictive means apply | Counsel was ineffective for failing to raise New Mexico RFRA to protect religious exercise | No ineffective assistance: RFRA would not have succeeded (statutes generally applicable, compelling interest in child protection, least-restrictive requirement satisfied) |
| Cumulative error | N/A | Multiple trial errors combined to deny fair trial | No individual reversible errors found, so no cumulative-error reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Downey, 145 N.M. 232, 195 P.3d 1244 (admissibility decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- City of Albuquerque v. Westland Dev. Co., 121 N.M. 144, 909 P.2d 25 (trial court may exclude needlessly cumulative photographs/evidence)
- State v. Varela, 128 N.M. 454, 993 P.2d 1280 (preservation requirement for appellate review of evidentiary objections)
- State v. Pierce, 110 N.M. 76, 792 P.2d 408 (CSPM/CSCM do not require specific sexual intent; unlawful means without legal justification)
- State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (appellate courts defer to jury’s resolution of conflicting witness testimony)