State v. Garcia, 302 P.3d 111

Defendant lived with Victim’s mother as her live-in boyfriend and caregiver for four children, including Victim who was eight; the alleged sexual touching occurred in February 2009 in the home.
Victim disclosed touching to school staff; Oasis interview with Victim followed by audio-recorded police interviews of Defendant.
Defendant provided statements in two police interviews, including an account of unintended touching while trying to scoot Victim in bed.
The State prepared a transcript of the police interview; the district court in limine ruled to exclude Victim’s prior CYFD allegations from trial and to redact references.
Defendant was convicted on two counts of second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor and sentenced to 31 years with 19 suspended.
The court remanded for in camera review of CYFD records sought by Defendant to determine materiality and prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of the redacted transcript was reversible error	Garcia argues Rule 11-106 requires completeness context	Garcia contends transcript provides context to admissions	Harmless error; not reversible.
Whether the district court should have ordered in camera review of CYFD records	State asserts no statutory basis for disclosure	Records may be material to defense	Remand for in camera review required.
Whether evidence of Victim’s prior CYFD allegations was properly excluded in limine	State asserts rape shield statute precludes prior conduct evidence	Prior allegations could be relevant to credibility and defense	Issue not preserved; ruling upheld on other grounds.
Sufficiency of evidence to support two CSCM convictions	State asserts sufficient evidence of touching and victim’s age	Evidence may not prove two incidents beyond reasonable doubt	Sufficient evidence to permit retrial if CYFD records limit is resolved.
Whether the police interview suppression claim has merit	Garcia contends coercion/invalid waiver of rights	Voluntary, knowing waiver under Miranda	No reversible error; waiver valid.
Cumulative error analysis	Aggregate errors deprived fair trial	Errors collectively prejudicial	Cumulative error not reversible; most errors harmless.

Barr v. State, 2009-NMSC-024, 146 N.M. 301, 210 P.3d 198 (N.M. Supreme Court 2009) (rule of completeness; non-constitutional error review on evidence exclusion)
Tollardo v. State, 2012-NMSC-008, 275 P.3d 110 (N.M. Supreme Court 2012) (harmless error analysis; central inquiry enduring to verdict)
Ortiz v. State, 2009-NMCA-092, 146 N.M. 873, 215 P.3d 811 (N.M. Court of Appeals 2009) (preservation of error; notice sufficient despite lack of exact rule citation)
State v. Aragon, 1993-NMCA-? (Ct. App.) (N.M. Court of Appeals 1993) (abuse of discretion when court fails to review offered evidence; need proper record)
State v. Moncayo, 2012-NMCA-066, 284 P.3d 423 (N.M. Court of Appeals 2012) (contextual review of evidence under harmless error standard)
State v. Pohl, 89 N.M. 523, 554 P.2d 984 (N.M. Court of Appeals 1976) (in camera review; materiality threshold for discovery)
State v. Gonzales, 1996-NMCA-026, 121 N.M. 421, 912 P.2d 297 (N.M. Court of Appeals 1996) (in camera review of confidential records when material to defense)
State v. Ramos, 1993-NMCA-? (Ct. App.) (N.M. Court of Appeals 1993) (limits of in camera review relevance; not dispositive here)
State v. Barrera, 2001-NMSC-014, 130 N.M. 227, 22 P.3d 1177 (N.M. Supreme Court 2001) (Miranda waiver voluntariness standard)
State v. Leyba, 2012-NMSC-037, 289 P.3d 1215 (N.M. Supreme Court 2012) (contextual evidence in evaluating trial error; non-preclusive)