State v. Montoya, 4 N.M. 367

Defendant Vincent Montoya was charged with kidnapping, attempted CSP, aggravated battery, and interference with communications; he was convicted of all but attempted CSP.
The district court pre-trial barred questioning Victim about prior sexual history with Montoya on Confrontation Clause grounds and rape shield considerations.
Montoya argued Victim’s past sexual conduct was relevant to his state of mind and the specific intent elements of kidnapping and CSP as make-up-sex incidents.
The court found Victim’s past sexual conduct inflammatory and prejudicial and limited cross-examination to topics other than the alleged long-standing sexual relationship.
Victim testified she had been Montoya’s girlfriend for about two years and that she did not view the advances as forced; she believed Montoya sought her consent.
On appeal, Montoya challenged (1) the exclusion of sexual-history evidence under Confrontation Clause and rape shield rules, (2) the jury instruction regarding general vs. specific intent for kidnapping; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause and rape shield conflict	State argues limitations were necessary to protect Victim and were non-prejudicial.	Montoya contends exclusion violated his right to cross-examine and challenge the opposing version of facts.	No Confrontation Clause violation; restrictions did not impair cross-examination relevant to intent.
Rape shield ruling under Johnson/Stephen F. framework	Evidence of past sexual conduct was probative of intent and not unduly prejudicial.	Rape shield exclusion was improper and violated his rights.	District court did not abuse its discretion; Johnson factors support exclusion.
Jury instruction on intent for kidnapping	General-intent instruction properly applied to the charged offenses.	Instruction error could mislead jurors about required intent.	No reversible error; instructions understood to apply to the appropriate offenses.

State v. Johnson, 124 N.M. 640 (1997) (establishes five-prong test and confrontation-right framework in rape shield disputes)
State v. Stephen F., 144 N.M. 360 (2008) (two-step process balancing state interest against Confrontation Clause rights)
State v. Gonzales, 128 N.M. 44 (1999) (wide latitude to limit cross-examination under Confrontation Clause)
State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438 (1999) (abuse-of-discretion framework in rape shield context)
State v. Meadors, 121 N.M. 38 (1995) (limits on cross-examination and confrontation analyzed under Confrontation Clause)
Sanders, 117 N.M. 452 (1994) (Confrontation Clause permits reasonable cross-examination limits)