State v. Skinner
150 N.M. 26
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Skinner was convicted of one count CSPM and one count CSPM left after a directed verdict, plus one CSCM; Child was six at the time of the alleged offenses.
- Dr. Karen Carson, a pediatrician and SANE examiner, testified about Child’s statements during the SANE exam under Rule 11-803(D).
- Child testified that Skinner touched her vagina and performed cunnilingus; Dr. Carson testified that Child identified Skinner as the abuser and described the acts.
- A drawing by Child during the SANE exam, depicting a penis, was admitted with Dr. Carson testifying it depicted Skinner’s penis, over defense objection.
- The court found admissibility for some statements and drew an error for the drawing, then conducted harmless-error review and ultimately affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of SANE statements | State argued statements fit Rule 11-803(D) as medical history aiding diagnosis/treatment. | Skinner argued statements were not medical diagnosis/treatment and were hearsay not admissible. | Statements admissible under Rule 11-803(D) per Mendez. |
| Admissibility of victim’s identification of abuser | Identification may be pertinent to treatment when abuser is within the household. | Identification of abuser ordinarily inadmissible for treatment purposes. | Identification admissible under Rule 11-803(D) where pertinent to treatment related to removing child from abuser. |
| Admissibility of the drawing itself | Drawing offered as relevant corroboration of Child’s account and defenses. | Drawing was inadmissible and improperly connected to Skinner. | Drawing admissible for relevance; some related statements were error but harmless. |
| Harmless error and sufficiency | Even with error, sufficient evidence supported conviction. | Drawing error and hearsay otherwise prejudicial could undermine verdict. | Error harmless; substantial non-prohibited evidence supports conviction; no substantial conflicting evidence. |
| Confrontation rights | Introduction of out-of-court statements via SANE testimony preserved confrontation rights. | Hearsay under Confrontation Clause violated rights. | Confrontation rights satisfied; Child testified and was cross-examined. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. State, 148 N.M. 761 (2010) (rejected Ortega limit; Rule 11-803(D) depends on treatment/diagnosis and reliability)
- Ortega v. State, 143 N.M. 261 (2008) (earlier rule on SANE statements, partly overruled by Mendez)
- State v. Branch, 148 N.M. 601 (2010) (harmless-error framework for evidentiary errors)
- State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438 (1999) (credibility of witnesses and appellate deference to juries)