Background - Dennis Miera was tried and convicted (Dec. 2014 jury) of two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor (child under 13), one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor, and one count of bribery of a witness. No physical evidence was presented; the case turned on witness credibility. - Before trial, Miera underwent a psychological evaluation by Dr. William Foote in the context of plea negotiations; the evaluation was disclosed to the State but no plea was reached. - At trial the State used statements from the evaluation to impeach Miera during cross-examination after he denied admissions attributed to him in the report. Defense counsel did not object and had not reviewed the report until immediately before Miera testified. - After conviction, Miera moved for a new trial, arguing the State had suppressed Brady material: that G.M. (the victim) had earlier accused and then recanted allegations against her stepfather, Esteban Burciaga. The district court found defense counsel knew (or could have learned) about the Burciaga matter and denied the motion. - On appeal the court (N.M. Ct. App.) held the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach Miera with the evaluation (statements made during plea negotiations), but that error alone did not constitute plain error. However, combined with multiple serious failures by defense counsel (failure to investigate Burciaga, failure to obtain/rely on the CYFD report showing the victim said she had not experienced "bad touch," failure to object to damaging testimony, and failure to research applicable law), the cumulative defects denied Miera a fair trial. The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Miera) | Held | |---|---:|---|---:| | Whether statements from a psychological evaluation prepared during plea negotiations may be used to impeach defendant | Watkins allows impeachment where defendant opens the door; the evaluation was properly used to impeach Miera after he denied the statements | Rule 11-410 and Trujillo bar admission of statements made during plea negotiations for any purpose, including impeachment | Trial court erred in allowing use of the evaluation for impeachment, but that error alone did not rise to plain-error reversal | | Whether the State suppressed Brady material (G.M.’s recantation of allegations against Burciaga) | The State disclosed the Burciaga nolle prosequi and defense counsel was aware or could have discovered it; no suppression | Brady violation: failure to disclose evidence impeaching the victim (recantation) | No Brady violation shown; district court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial because defense had or could have obtained the information | | Whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to (a) research and object to use of the evaluation and (b) investigate Burciaga and the CYFD report | State contended counsel’s choices could be strategic and outcome supported by evidence | Counsel failed to research controlling authority, did not obtain the evaluation before cross, failed to investigate a key alternate suspect and did not use a CYFD report that undermined victim credibility | Appellate court found a prima facie case of ineffective assistance and that counsel’s multiple failures were not plausibly strategic; prejudice likely but remand for evidentiary hearing unnecessary because cumulative error required reversal | | Whether cumulative errors warrant reversal | State argued errors were not individually reversible and evidence supports verdict | Errors (improper impeachment plus multiple defense failures) cumulatively undermined fairness of trial | Cumulative error doctrine applied: the combination of errors denied defendant a fair trial; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial | ### Key Cases Cited Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of evidence favorable to accused violates due process when material) State v. Trujillo, 93 N.M. 724, 605 P.2d 232 (N.M. 1980) (information from plea negotiations is inadmissible at trial for substantive or impeachment purposes) State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 758 P.2d 783 (N.M. 1988) (standards for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence) State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (N.M. 2015) (defines plain error review for unpreserved evidentiary issues and requirement that error create grave doubts about verdict) * State v. Paiz, 127 N.M. 776, 987 P.2d 1163 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (discussion of sparing use of plain-error doctrine)