367 P.3d 909
N.M. Ct. App.2016Background
- In Dec. 2010, eight-year-old C.S. disclosed sexual abuse by Armando Perez; Perez was charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration and sexual contact of a minor.
- Two days before trial, a handwritten note (apparently by C.S.) referenced "voices," prompting the district court sua sponte to hold an emergency competency inquiry and order a psychological evaluation under §30-9-18.
- The court-appointed psychologist, Dr. David Sachs, testified that C.S. could differentiate truth from lies and understood consequences for lying, but expressed concerns about vagueness, thought disorder signs, poor memory, and possible schizophrenia-spectrum traits; he concluded C.S. was incompetent to testify.
- The district court credited Dr. Sachs and ruled C.S. incompetent to testify at trial and retroactively incompetent at the preliminary hearing; it also excluded C.S.’s prior statements and testimony.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the court applied the correct legal standard for competency and whether reassignment on remand was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred finding C.S. incompetent to testify | Dr. Sachs’ testimony showed C.S. met the minimal competency standard (could distinguish truth/lie and knew consequences); court applied incorrect standard and abused discretion | Court applied correct standard; expert’s concerns supported incompetence (thinking disorder, vagueness, poor memory) | Reversed: court applied wrong legal standard; minimal standard (basic ability to distinguish truth/lie) was met, so exclusion was error |
| Whether reassignment to a different judge on remand is required | District judge referenced extrajudicial knowledge about a forensic examiner, suggesting bias warranting reassignment | Defendant noted judge’s comments but argued they did not require reassignment; court’s impartiality remains intact | Denied: reassignment not warranted; appellate court confident judge will be fair on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hueglin, 130 N.M. 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (articulates minimal competency standard: basic understanding of truth vs. lie and awareness lying is wrong)
- State v. Ruiz, 141 N.M. 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (explains presumption of competency and that credibility questions go to the jury)
- State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438 (N.M. 1999) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- State v. Bonilla, 130 N.M. 1 (N.M. 2000) (grounds for reassignment when judge's extrajudicial comments create appearance of impropriety)
- State v. Vasquez, 326 P.3d 447 (N.M. 2014) (procedural context concerning appellate jurisdiction and certification issues)