1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___

____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: N ove m

be r 29, 201 6 4 N O. 33, 692 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 JORGE BER

NA RD O HU ERT A- CA STR O, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF DO ÑAAN A C OUN TY 11 F er na nd o R . M ac ias , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Maris V eidem anis, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 14 Santa Fe , N M 15 for Appellee 16 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 17 Mary Bar ket, A ssistant Appellate D efender 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 KEN NED Y, Judge. 3 { 1} De fendant wa s convicted of twelve counts of crim inal sexual penetr ation of a 4 m inor. Six of these counts of the indictm ent pertained to one child, and six to another. 5 O the rw ise , a ll tw el ve c harg es in the ind ic tm en t w er e ex ac t du pli cate s w ithpr ec ise ly 6 the sam e language. Defendan t’ s m oti on f or abil l of part ic ulars w as de nie d pr ior to 7 trial; his m otion for a directed v erdict was d enied. D efendant now asserts on appeal 8 that the se ide nti ca l c oun ts vio la te d hi s r igh t t o du e pr oc es s and s ubj ec te d hi m to 9 doub le j eopardy . W e agre e. As such, ten of the twe lve charges against Defe ndant are 10 dis m iss ed

. The rem ai nin g tw o c harg es a re sup porte d by suf fi ci en t e vid en ce a nd 11 wou ld be a ff

irm ed but f or c um ulativ e er ro r that c au se d pr ej udi ce to D ef en dant. 12 Rev ers edan d re m an de d fo r ret ria l o n o ne co un t as to each vi ct im

. 13 I. BACKGRO UND 14 { 2} De fendant wa s indicted on twe lve counts o f cr im inal sexual penetration o f a 15 m ino r (C SP M)

. S ix o f the tw el ve c ount s r ea d a s f oll ow s: 16 [O ] n, about

or be tw ee n Augus t 15 , 201 2, a nd Oc tob er 13, 201 2, in D ona 17 A naCo unty , the ab ove -n am ed de fe ndant did cause [C hil d 1] to en ga ge 18 in s ex ua l i nte rc our se a nd/ or c au se d the ins er

tio n of an y obj ec t i nto the 19 int im at e part

of [ Ch ild 1] , a nd [ Ch ild

1] w as tw el ve y ear s of

a ge or 20 y oung er, a first degree felony , c ontrary to § 30-9-11 (D )(1), NMS A 21 1978

.18 T he c hil dr enin thi s ca se ha ve the sa m e ini tia ls f or the ir f ir st and l as t nam es . 1 19 W e w ill ide nti fy

the m a s C hil d 1 and C hil d 2 thr ough out thi s op ini on. 2 1 In t he rem aining six counts, the first two r efer ences to Child 1’s nam e w ere replace d 2 with Child 2’ s nam e. Other th an t he nam e substit ution , a ll twelve c ount s wer e 1 3 ind ist ing uis hable

. T he S ta te a cknow le dge d th at a ll refere nc es to Ch ild

1 i n c ount s 4 se ve n th ro ugh tw el ve sho uld ha ve r ef er en ce d C hil d 2, a nd i t l at er am en de d it s 5 ind ic tm en t t o c or

re ct the na m ing e rr or

on c ount s se ve n thro ugh tw el ve , r es ult ing in 6 tw o se ts o f six ide nti ca l c ount s a s to e ac h c hil d. 7 M ot ion f

or a B illof

P ar ti cu lar s ( St at em en t of F ac ts ) 8 { 3} D ef

en dant f ile d am oti on f

or abil l of part ic ulars . T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a 9 hearing on the m otion , during which Defendant requested m ore particularity on each 10 of the tw el ve c ount s. S pe ci fi ca lly , de fen se c ouns el r eque ste d de ta ils r eg ar din g th e 11 tim e, da te , loc at ion , a nd a ct ion s a lle ge d ine ac h c ount of the ind ic tm en t. 12 Charac terizing the indictm ent as a “ shotg un ind ictm ent,” defense counsel explained 13 to the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t it wa s uncl ear w ha t he wa s def en din g aga ins t i n e ac h c ount , 14 an d a s su ch , he c oul d no t e ff ec tiv el y de fe nd ag ai nst an y of the c ount s. T he ina bil ity 15 to f orm ulate ade fe nse r ev olv ed

part ic ularl y

a ro und the ti m e of day of the inc ide nts , 16 whether De fendant m ight h ave been at w or k , wh at day or w eek it w as, or

even 17 w he the r he w as a ro und at the se ti m es .3

1 { 4} T he S t a t e c o n c e d e d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t p r o v i d e s p e c i f i c d a t e s b e c au s e of

the 2 y oung ag es of Ch ildre n, but tol d the co urt tha t C hil dr enc oul d narr owthe inc ide nts 3 by the ti m e of

day a nd i n r el at ionto oth er ev en ts. A ddi tio na lly , the S ta te poi nte d ou t 4 that it co uld pr ovi de a

be gin nin g and e nd d at e fo r the abuse a nd c oul d sp ec if y that i t 5 too k pl ac e in the hom e. T he St at e al so a sse rt ed that i t ha d ph y sic al e vid en ce to show 6 w he n th e la st i nc ide nt o cc ur re d. 7 { 5} The district court took note of the y oung age of Children—six and eight y ears 8 old a t the ti m e of

the in cide nts —and p oin te d ou t tha t the ina bil ity of Ch ildre n to 9 pinp oi nt

as pe c i f i c d a t e d i d no tr e f

l e c tad e f i c i e nc y i n t he i nd i c t m e nt

. T he d i str i ct 10 co urt ba se d it s in te rp re ta tio n of the ind ic tm en t onit s re lianc e on the S ta te ’ s a sse rt ion 11 that w itn es s in te rv ie w s y et to oc cur w oul d pr ovi de e vid en ce that tw el ve dif fe re nt 12 inc ide nts oc curr ed

. T he di st ric t court c onc lud ed that the iss ue s w iththe ind ic tm en t 13 co uld be r es olv ed

thr oughthe subs eque nt int er vie w s an d de nie d D ef

en dant’ s m oti on. 14 T he dis tr ic t c ourt no te d t ha t i f, a ft er c ondu ct ing the int er

vie w s, D ef

en dant c oul d 15 pr ovi de a ddi ti on al ar gum en t r eg ar din g th e iss ue , he c oul d f ile f urthe r m oti ons. 16 Defen da nt di d n ot fil e an y ot he r m ot io n re ga rd in g d efi ci en ci es in th e in di ct m en t. 17 { 6} At tria l , t h e State presented testim ony from Child 1, Child 2, their m other 18 (M oth er ), the ir

gr an dm oth er

( G randm oth er ), th e inv es tig at ing de te ct ive , a nd the 1 9 f o r e n s i c i n t e rv i e w e r . D e f

e n d a n tp r e s e n t e dt e s t i mo n y f r o m a p e d i a t r i c i a n . A t t h e t i me4

1 of the alleged abuse, D efendant lived with his girlfriend, Moth er, in La s Cruces, Ne w 2 Me xic o w ithCh ild

1 and C hil d 2. Mo the r w oul d le av e fo r w ork e ar ly in the m or

nin gs, 3 an d D ef

en dant w oul d w ak e Ch ildre n and g et the m re ady

f or sc hool

. A t tri al , Ch ild

1 4 an d C hil d 2 t es tif

ied to D ef

en dant p utt ing his pe nis a nd f ing er s ine ac h of

the ir 5 va gin as a nd anus w hil e the ir sib lin g w as sho w er ing

. Bo th C hi ld 1 a nd C hil d 2 6 te sti fi ed

that D ef en dant a ct ed

in thi s w ay

m or e than si x ti m es . 7 { 7} Child 2 testified th at D efendant fi rs t did these acts to her on “ a day before 8 s ch o o l s t ar t ed .” Th e St at e’s qu es t i o n i n g re g ar d i n g t h i s i n ci d en t , an d C h i l d 2 ’s 9 responses thereto, were specifically lim ited to De fendant’ s actions toward her alone. 10 It w as not pr ove n w he n sc hool start ed , nor that A ugus t 15, 2012 , w as a da te r el ev an t 11 to the start of school. Child 2 did not rem em ber w hen the last incident of this sort 12 oc curr ed , a nd C hil d 1 g av e no t es tim ony r eg ar din g af

ina l i nc ide nt. 13 { 8} T he S ta te pr es en te d so m e ev ide nc e that the a lle ge d a buse e nde d on O ct obe r 13, 1 4 2 0 1 2 , t h ro u g h t h e t es t i m o n y o f Gr an d m o t h er wh o s t at ed t h at o n t h at d at e, Ch i l d1 ’s 15 ge nit al a re a w as re d, ir ri ta te d, an d had a

r as h. G randm oth er

te sti fi ed that C hil d 2 a lso 16 re porte d havin g be en ab use d, tho ugh it is unc le ar w he n sh e m ad e thi s a lle ga tio n, a nd 17 Gr andm other did not see sim ilar inj uries on Child 2 . A fter G randm other told Mot her 18 about th e ra sh and abuse, Mother tookChildren to the em ergency room on October 19 13 , 20 12 . Chi ld ren were n ot ex am in edat t ha t t im e, bu t p ol ic e were d is pa tc he d.1 9 M o t h e r ’s t e s t i mo n y d i dn o tl e n da n y c l a r i f i c a t i o n t o t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y. 2 5 1 { 9} De tective Martinez testified that, based on his interview with Mother while at 2 the hosp ital, the last incident had occurred six to eight days ea rlier. How ever, 3 D et ec tiv e Mart ine z la te r cl ar if ie d that dur ing sub se que nt i nte rv ie w s w ithMo the r, he 4 discovered that the last incident hadactually occurre d fourteen day s before Children 5 we re taken to the hospital. Children we re taken to a f orensic interview on O ctober 2 6 14, 201 2, a nd the y

w er e la te r ex am ine d by a ped ia tr ic ian on O ct obe r 30, 201 2. T he 7 pe di a t r i c i a n i n d i c a t e dt h a th e r e x a m i n a t i o n o f

C h i l d r e n d i dn o tr e v e a l a n y i n j u r i e s, 8 a n d t h a t h e r f

i n d i n g s d i d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y m e a n t h a t C h i l d r e n w e r e notse xua lly 9 ab use d. 10 { 10} Once the State r es t ed i t s case, defense c ouns el m ade a m otion for direc ted 11 ve rd ic t, poi nti ng o ut that the St at e ha d fa ile d to pr oduc e an y ev ide nc e that the e ve nts 12 occurred in the char ging period or that six separat e i n ci dents occurred as to each 1 3 ch i l d . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed t h e mot i o nb u tac kn o wl ed g ed t h at De fe n d an t ’s 14 argum ent had m erit because no evidence sup ported any crim e occurr ing with regard 15 to the c harged date of August 15, 2012 , and allowed De fendant to a rgue to the jury 16 that no ev ide nc e sugg es te d that the ab use too k pl ac e w ith in the c harg ing pe ri od. T he 17 j ur y f ound D ef en dant gui lty of al l tw el ve co unt s of CS PM

. D ef

en dant a ppe al ed to thi s 18 Co urt. O the r fa ct s w ill be dis cu sse d a s ne ed ed in the c our se of

the opi nio n.18 While the term s “bill of p ar t iculars” and “ statem ent of fac ts” are used 3 19 interchangeably

in our jurisprud ence, we note that “ statem ent of fac ts” is the term 20 ad op te d i n o urRu le s o f Cri m in al Pro ced ur e. See Ru le 5-2 05 (C) NM RA. 6 1 II. DISC US SION 2 { 11} D ef

en dant a lle ge s th at

the c harg ing doc um en ts i n th is cas e viol at ed his r igh t 3 to d ue pr oc es s and rig ht to b e fr ee f ro m double j eo pardy

be ca use the y la ck ed the 4 requisite level of specificity . D efendant also asserts that there is insufficient evidence 5 to s uppo rt

his c onvi ct ionon al l tw el ve co unt s. W e fi rs t a ddr es s D ef en dant’ s arg um en t 6 regarding the specificity of the charging docum ents. Finding rever sible error on that 7 iss ue , w e the n de ci de w he the r suf fi ci en t ev ide nc e ex ist ed to s uppo rt a ll or a ny of the 8 c o u n t s i n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y d o ub l e j e o p a r d y. F i n a l l y, w e e v a l u a t e D e f e n d a n t ’s c l a i ms 9 that he w as pr ej udi ce d by the S ta te ’ s f

ai lur e to tu rnove r ex cu lpator y e vid en ce in a 10 tim ely m anner or by

cum ulative error. 11 A . A de qu ac y of

N ot ic e F ro m C ook

ie -C ut te r C ou nt s an d D ue P ro ce ss 12 { 12} D ef

enda nt fir st a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in not gr an tin g hi s m oti on 13 for a bill of par t i cu l ar s prior to trial, and that at the end of trial, the district court 3 1 4 e rr e di n n o td i s mi s s i n g c h a r g e s f o r t h e l a c ko f

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m. 15 { 13} “ T he obj ec t of

abil l of part ic ulars in cr im ina l c as es is to en ab le the de fe ndant 16 to p ro perl y

pr ep ar e his de fe nse , a nd, to ac hie ve that f undam en ta l purp ose , it

m ust 17 state a s m

uc h as m ay be ne cess ar

y to giv e the de fe ndant and the c ourt r ea sona ble7

1 inform ation as to the natu re and ch ar ac t er of the c rim e char ged[.] ” State v. M osley , 2 1965 -N MSC- 081, ¶ 4, 75 N. M. 348, 404 P. 2d 30 4 (c i t at ion om itted). I n cases 3 inv olv ing c hil d vi ct im s, a lle ga tio ns of cr im ina l be ha vio r of te n la ck spe ci fi ci ty

a s to 4 the da te , loc at ion , or

de ta ils of

apart ic ular inc ide nt w ith in the pe ri od of t im e fo r 5 whi ch a de fen da nt is ch arg ed

. Se e Sta te v . V arga s , 201 6- N MC A -0 38, ¶ 39, 368 P

. 3d 6 12 32. W e re co gni ze that be ca use the S ta te ha s ac om

pe lli ng i nte re st i n pr ote ct ing 7 ch ild vic tim s, our

c ourts c anbe “ le ss v igo ro us i n r equir ing spe ci fi ci ty a s to ti m e an d 8 place w hen y oung children are inv o l v ed than would usu ally be the case wher e an 9 adult is in volv ed.” Id

. ¶ 40 ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T his 10 fl ex ibi lity

doe s no t, how ev er , pe rm it the S ta te to pr oc ee d ba se d onala ck of a de qua te 11 no ti ce o f th e co nd uc t upo n wh ic h a n i nd ic tm en t i s b as ed

. 12 { 14} Pr oc ed

ur al due pr oc es s r equir es “ the S ta te to pr ov id e rea sona ble not ic e of 13 c har ge s a ga i ns tap e r so n a nd af a i r o pp or tun i t y t o de f e nd[.] ” Sta te v . B ald

onad o , 14 1998 -N MC A -0 40, ¶ 21, 1 24 N

. M. 745 , 955 P

. 2d 2 14. T his inc lud es ar equir em en t 15 that the S ta te pr ovi de de fe ndants w ith a re as ona ble abil ity to pr ote ct the m se lve s f

ro m 16 be in g c on vi ct edm or e th an on ce fo r th e sa m e b eh a v i or . State v. D ominguez , 200 8- 17 NMC A- 0 2 9 , ¶ 5, 143 N.M. 549, 178 P.3d 834. In sum , the S tate is able to proceed 18 with prosecution on ly for th ose acts for which it is able to provid e a f actually distin ct 19 b a si s. Id

. ¶

¶ 10- 11. A c harg ing de fe ct e nc om pa sse d by

c ooki e- cu tte r al le ga tio ns8

1 within a broad tim e period operates in tw o way s to deny a defendant’ s rights. It gives 2 rise to the poss ibility that a defendant m ight suffer doub le j eopardy in his initial trial 3 by being conv icted and puni shed m ultip le tim es on undiffer entiated counts for what 4 m igh t have be enthe sam e of fens e, an d it r en de rs ade fe ndant unable to ple ad a 5 sp eci fic co nv ic ti on or acq ui tt al as a ba r to fut ur e p ro se cu ti on . Id

. ¶ 9

. P r o c e du r a l l y, 6 D ef en dant e xe rc ise d hi s r igh ts in the thr ee w ay s inw hic h he c oul d m ost e ff ic ie ntl y 7 ra ise the iss ue of la ck of spe ci fi ci ty in the ch ar ge s: (1 ) pr e- tr ia l thr ougham oti on f or 8 a state m en t of

f ac ts u nd er Ru le 5- 205(C ); ( 2) a t the c los e of the S ta te ’ s c as e in a 9 m otion for direc ted verdict; and (3) at the close of tr ial, in a m otion to dism iss for lack 1 0 o f s u ff

i ci en tev i d en ce t o s up p o rt al l o f t h e c o u n t s ch ar g ed i n t h e i n d i ct m en t . We 11 ad dr es s e ac h intur

n. 12 B. A S tatem ent of F acts Was Im proper ly Den ied; R eversal Is Req uired 13 { 15} In this case, the indictm ent charged six factually u n d i ff erentiated ac ts per 14 vic tim oc curr ing be tw ee n tw o da te s, about tw o m onths apart

. D ef

en dant m ove d f

or 15 a bil l of

part ic ulars , c it in g B ald

onad o , 199 8- N MC A -0 40, ¶

¶ 26- 29, a nd p re se rv ing 16 th e is su e fo r th is ap pe al

. Se e Sta te v . A ltg ilb er s , 1986-NMC A- 106, ¶ 4 6 , 1 0 9 N. M. 17 453, 786 P.2d 680 (holding that a defe ndant who does n ot raise lack of not ice by way 18 of requesting a statem ent of fac ts before trial has w aived a claim to lack of notice). 19 De fense counsel detailed the vagueness and the effe ct on his in ability to form ulate a9

1 de fe nse . S pe ci fi ca lly , D ef en dant c oul d no t a scert ai n fr om the c harg ing doc um en t 2 ar ound w ha t tim e of day thi ngs m igh t have ha ppe ne d, or

r el at ing w he the r D ef

en dant 3 w as a t w ork, w ha t day or w ee k it w as , or w he re he w as dur ing the se ti m es . A s to the 4 inc ide nts c harg ed , c ouns el sa id, “ the y al l ha ppe ne d at ba sic al ly the sam e tim e. ” T he 5 m o t i o n h ea ri n g t o o k ju s t o v er t en m i n u t es b ef o re t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt d en i ed De fe n d an t ’s 6 m ot io n fo r a b il l o f pa rti cu la rs . 7 { 16} A s de fe nse c ouns el a cknow le dge d th at the ind ic tm en t’ s lac k of spe ci fi ci ty 8 could be du e to Children’ s inabilit y to provid e m ore sp ecific inform ation, t he court 9 asked, “ Then how do I m ake that occur; that’ s not a deficiency in the indictm ent, that 10 goe s to kin d of

the w ei ght

of the e vid en ce that w oul d be pr es en te d by the St at e. ” W ith 11 this basi s for its decis i o n, the district court m istakenlyshifted the focus of our law 12 fr om astate m en t of

f ac ts tha t “ giv e[s] t he defe ndant and the c ourt r ea sona ble 13 inform ation as to the natu re and ch ar ac t er of the crim e char ged,” Mosley , 196 5- 14 N MS C- 081, ¶

4, to the e vid en ce th e St at e w oul d su bse que ntl y

pr ovi de by

w ay of 15 dis co ve ry an d at tr ia l to p ro ve the spe ci fi c al le ga tio ns. T he r em edy f or a n e rr one ous 16 fa ilure to pr ovi de a de qua te in fo rm at iona s to the na tur e of the c harg es is re ve rs al , 17 State v. Graves , 196 3- N MS C- 183, ¶ 12, 73 N

. M. 79, 385 P

. 2d 6 35, a nd f ai lur e to 18 spe ci fy

ind ivi dua l c harg es ’ f

ac tua l basi s is ju dge d at the ti m e the state m en t of f ac ts 19 is r eque ste d, not

w he the r pr ej udi ce m igh t have r es ult ed ( or be enc ur ed ) by

tr ia l onthe10

1 m eri ts

. Id

. T hus, a ny er ro r in den y ing a bil l of partic ulars oc curs a t the ti m e of de nia l, 2 not aft er

e vid en ce is pr oduc ed

a t a la te r tim e. T ha t pr inc ipl e ha s no t c hange d, 3 al tho ugh B ald

onad o an d D om ing ue

z ha ve sin ce ap pli ed

thi s pr inc ipl e to the spe ci fi c 4 pr obl em

of “ the pr oper ba lanc e to b e str uc k be tw ee n th e due pr oc es s im pe rativ e to 5 pr ovi de r ea sona

ble no ti ce of ch ar ge s a ga ins t a c ri m ina l de fe ndant, a nd the ne ed to 6 allow the State reasonable leeway in prosecuting crim es com m itted against child ren 7 of tender y ears. ” B ald

onad o , 1998 -N MC A -0 40, ¶

1. I n Graves , our Suprem e Court 8 noted th at the rule for

a bill of particulars “ would seem to m ak e i t m an d at ory

that 9 ce rt ai n ba sic inf

orm at ion , not ev ide nc e, be furn ish ed

. ” 1963 -N MS C- 183, ¶ 11 . A 10 di st ric t at to rn ey

is no t re qu ire d t o p le adev id en ce i n a bi ll of p art ic ul ars . Mosley , 1 1 1965

- N M S C

- 0 8 1 , ¶

4

. B y e m p h a s i z i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e S t a t e e v e n tua lly 12 pr oduc ing dis co ve ry by w ay of int er vie w s y et to be co nduc te d, or j udgi ng the qua lity 13 of the indicted charges by the we ight o f evidence to be produced at trial, the district 14 court applied the incorrect legal st an d ard re sultin g in the court’s f ailure to order a 15 state m en t of

f ac ts a s r equir ed

in B ald onad o . 16 { 17} O ur

S upr em e Co urt r ec ogni ze d lo ng a go tha t a bil l of part ic ulars is the “ m eans 17 [thr ou gh whic h] the r igh t of a n a cc use d to appe ar

a nd d ef en d and t o de m an d th e 18 na tur e an d c au se of the ac cu sa tio n ag ai nst him , c ont ai ne d in[ A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 14 ] 19 of the Ne w Me xico C onsti tutio n, is assured. ” Sta te v . Ca m pos , 196 8- N MS C- 177,11

1 ¶ 11, 79 N

. M. 611 , 447 P

. 2d 2 0. I n Ca m pos , r el y ing onGraves , our S uprem e Court 2 “ re co gni ze d th at if a de fe ndant a ske d f or abil l of part ic ulars he w as e nti tle d to 3 sufficient inform ation to enable him to prepare a

defense. ” Ca m

pos , 1 9 6 8 -N MSC4 177, ¶ 10. H owever , a s m entio n ed above, “ we have never held that the State m ay 5 m ove f

or w ar d w ith a pr ose cu tio n of sup pose dly

dis tin ct of fe nse s ba se d onno 6 di st in gu is hi ng fact s o r ci rcu m st an ces at a ll , si m pl y be cau se t he vi ct im

is a ch il d.” 7 Dom ingu ez , 2008-NMC A- 029, ¶ 10. Th i s is not to say an indictm ent for indistin ct 8 co unt s m

ust f ai l e nti re ly ; i n State v. G ardn er , w e he ld tha t wi th re spe ct to counts f or 9 w hic h th e ch ildre n’ s st at em en ts d id n ot h av e en oughspe ci fi c inf orm at ionto ch ar ge 10 distin ct incidents of abuse, the State could sti ll proceed w ith a prosecution , since 11 ev id en ce o f a co ur se of c on du ctco ul d s up po rt a si ng le co un t of abu se . 20 03 -NMCA12 10 7, ¶ 2 8, 1 34 N.M. 29 4, 7 6 P .3d47

. 13 { 18} In Dom ingu ez , the dis tr ic t c ourt t ook up the de fe ndant’ s m otion fo r a bill of 14 particulars to distin guish ten identical charges in the indictment (virtually identical 15 to those in thi s c as e) an d he ld the i ndi ctm en t pr ovi de d su ff ic ie nt n oti ce to the 16 defendant only because th e bill of particulars filed by the State aft er the ind ic tm en t 17 de sc ri be d se parate inc ide nts

. W e he ld tha t the c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

f ive c ount s 18 that c oul d no t be l ink ed to a spe ci fi c inc ide nt o f ab use . 200 8- N MC A -0 29, ¶ ¶ 10- 12. 19 W e he ld i n Dom ingu ez , ba se d on Gardner , 200 3- N MC A -1 07, ¶¶ 26 -2 8, that the12

1 charging of m

ultip le acts in a p eriod of t im e withou t factual diff erentiation between 2 inc id en ts or of

fe nse s pe rm its no m or e than asin gle c harg e ba se d onac our se of 3 co nd uc t. See D ominguez , 200 8- N MC A -0 29, ¶ 10. W e carr ie d th is r

ule f or w ar d in 4 State v. T

afoya , 20 10 -NMCA- 01 0, 1 47 N.M. 60 2 , 2 27 P.3d 92 , to ho ldth attwo 5 ind ist ing uis hable c ount s of va gin al CS PM a nd tw o of an al CS PM vio la te d th e 6 de fe ndant’ s r igh ts. I n Tafoya , w e he ld a ga in tha t a la ck of dif fe re nti at ionbe tw ee n th e 7 co un t s o f

p e n e t r a t i o n n e c e s s i t a t e dr e v e r s a l o f o n e c o u n to f

e a c h b e c au s e t he 8 dupl ic at ive a nd undi ffer en tiate d c ount s e sta bli she d no thi ng m or e than apa tte rnof 9 co nd uc t. Id

. ¶ 24

. 10 { 19} Whe n th e ne ed f or abil l of part ic ulars is j udge d a t the ti m e th e indi ctm en t i s 11 before the c ourt, evidence that is disclo sed later is of no consequence to the dist rict 1 2 c o u rt ’ s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I n Bal dona do , w e re j ec te d apos iti on tha t the S ta te ’ s on ly 13 obl igatio n w as to “ fr am e the c harg e as it de te rm ine s a

ppro pr ia te a nd p ro vid e fu ll 14 dis co ve ry . ” 1998 -N MC A -0 40, ¶ 19. O ur S upr em e Co urt no te d th at the ru le fo r a b ill 15 of part ic ulars “ w oul d see m to m ak e it m an da tor y that c er ta in b as ic inf

orm at ion , not 16 evidence, be furnished.” Graves , 1963-NMS C-183, ¶ 11. In t h i s case, the district 17 co urt expl ic itl y bui lt its de nia l of D ef en dant’ s m oti on n ot o n th e suf fi ci en cy of f ac ts 18 alleged in the charging docum ent, but on the poss ibility of later discovery of evidence 19 by w ay of in te rv ie ws wi th the vic tim s or oth er state w itn es se s to sub sti tut e fo r the13

1 pauc ity of f ac ts ava ila

ble in the c harg ing doc um en t itse lf

. T his is c le ar ly

ins uf fi ci en t 2 under B ald

onad o , where the c harging do cum ent m ust be evaluated a s to its adequacy 3 pri or to , and

apa rt f rom , spe cu la tio n on ev ide nc e y et to be pr oduc ed , a nd c er ta inl y 4 pr ior to subm itt ing an y ev ide nc e to a j ur y . T he re , our

r uli ng r ej ec te d th is post-f

ac to 5 pa th to jus ti fic at io n o f an in su ffi ci en t i nd ic tm en t. See 1998 -N MCA -040, ¶ 25 (“ Even 6 gr an ti ng the de fe ndant d isc ove ry of the S ta te ’ s e vid en ce m ay not pr ovi de a de qua te 7 not ic e if

the S ta te , pe rh ap s f

or t act ic al re as ons, ha s si m ply f ai le d to e nga ge in 8 investig ational efforts to narrowthe tim e period. D ue process re q u i res m ore than 9 sim p l e n o t i ce of the prosecutio n’ s evidence in these circum stances.”) . T he district 10 co urt e rr ed in de ny ing the bil l of part ic ulars ba se d onthe oc curr en ce of sub se que nt 11 w itn es s in te rv ie w s. 12 { 20} A cc or din gly , in B ald onad o w e hel d that ea chc as e re qui re s e xa m inatio n by the 1 3 dis t r i c tc o u rto n ac o u n t

- b y - c o u n tb a s i s a s t o w h e t h e r a n i n d i c t m e n ti s r e a s o n ab ly 14 pa rti cu la r wit h re sp ect to th e ti m e o f th e o ffen se . Id

. ¶ 26. I n othe r w or ds, 15 w hat is r equir ed is ane spe ci al ly

dil ige nt s cr

uti ny of the f ac ts o f the 1 6 i n c i d e n ta s t h e y ma y b e d i s c l o s e d

. T h e a i m i s t o n a rr o wt h e t i me f r a me 17 of

the oc curr en ce as co m

pla ine d of —i f not to the e xte nt o f ane xa ct

da te 18 or

da te s, the n po ssi bly

in re spe ct

of se as ons of the y ear, or

inc ide nts in 19 the vic tim ’ s li fe suc h a s ade ath inthe fam ily , or ac hange in a fam ily 20 m em

be r’ s j ob r out ine , or

the be gin nin g of

the sc hool y ear or

of va catio n 21 tim e or of e xtracurric ular activities. When the trial court is satisfied that 22 the se sourc es of inf orm at ionha ve be ene xhaust ed , it w ill the n be in a 23 posi tio n to st rik e the ne ce ssary ba lanc e to d et er

m ine w he the r “ fa ir 24 not ic e” ha s be engiv en .14

1 Id

. ¶ 28 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. B ald onad o set out an 2 ex te nsi ve out lin e fo r the pr oc es s by w hic h a dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d a sse ss a lle ga tio ns 3 of in su ffi ci en t s pe ci fic it y

in th e ch arg in g d oc um en t. Id . ¶¶ 26 -2 9. 4 { 21} The district court w as obliged, but di d not attem pt, to analy ze the suffic iency 5 of the indictm ent based on th e fa cts underly ing th e char ges according to the analytical 6 fr am ew ork w e dic ta te d in B a ld o nado , but

m ove d th e pr obl em

down th e ro ad

by 7 re ly ing on the pos sib ili ty that fu rthe r w itn es s in te rv ie w s m igh t pr oduc e re le vant 8 inform ation, and on Def endant’ s ability to questio n the we ight o f the State ’ s evidence 9 at t ri al b as ed o n an y l ac k o f t emp o ra l s p ec i fi ci t y. Th i s i s t h e r o o to f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 10 fi rs t e rr or . I n B ald

onad o , w e re ve rs ed

a nd r em an de d to the dis tr ic t c ourt, r equir ing it 11 to a ppl y the m ethod w e ad opt ed to de te rm ine w he the r the ind ic tm en t w as r ea sona bly 12 pa rti cu la r. Id

. ¶¶ 2 9- 33

. 13 { 22} In Dom ingu ez , w e af fi rm ed the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c ull ing of ina de qua te c ount s in 14 the ch argi ng d oc um en t w he n it use d th e m ethod out lin ed in B ald onad o . Under 15 Dom ingu ez ’s mo r e s t r i ct ru l e, i ti s a f ai r v i ew t h at t h e c h ar g es i n De fe n d an t ’s 16 ind ic tm en t he re a re f

ac ia lly ba se d onc our se s of

c ondu ct ove r a tw o-m onth pe ri od, 17 and not “ anchored to particular offe nses” supp orting no m ore than one count for each 18 child victim . 200 8-NMC A- 029, ¶ 8. It is clear that the district court’ s failure to order 19 the S ta te to pr oduc e a bil l of partic ulars to addre ss the ins uf fi ci en cy of the ind ic tm en t15

1 to c harg e spe ci fi c and dis tin ct of fe nse s violate d De fe ndant’ s rig hts to due pr oc es s and 2 re qui re s re ve rs al of

f ive of D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s. T he six th c ount a s to e ac h vi ct im 3 is s uf fi ci en t i n th at

it r ef le ct s D ef en dant’ s a lle ge d c our se of c ondu ct

. 4 B. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e 5 { 23} Ba se d on our re ve rs al , w e m ust a ddr es s D ef

en dant’ s arg um en t tha t su ff ic ie nt 6 ev ide nc e did

not sup port hi s c onvi ct ion s. 7 { 24} In review ing th e sufficiency of evidence on a ppeal, we consider the e vidence 8 pr es en te d a t tri al in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gui lty

ve rd ic t, ind

ulg ing a ll 9 re as ona

ble inf eren ces an d r es olv ing a ll co nf lic ts i n th e ev ide nc e in f av or of the 10 ve rd ic t. Sta te v . Cu nni ngha m , 2000 -N MS C- 009, ¶ 26, 128 N

. M. 711 , 998 P

. 2d 1 76. 11 T he e vid en ce sup portin g ac onvi ct ionis suf fi ci ent whe n “ subs tanti al e vid en ce of 12 ei ther adir ec t or

c ir cu m stanti al na tur e ex ist s to sup port a ve rd ic t of

gui lt be y ond a 13 reasonable doubt with re s p ec t t o every elem ent essential to a convictio n.” State v. 14 D uran , 200 6- N MS C- 035, ¶ 5, 140 N

. M. 94, 140 P. 3d 515 (in te rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks 15 an d c itatio n om itt ed ). S ubst an tia l e vid en ce is tha t wh ic h a rea sona ble m ind a cc ep ts 16 as ad eq ua te to su pp or t a c on cl us io n. Sta te v . A rre ndon do , 201 2- N MS C- 013, ¶ 10, 278 17 P. 3d 5 17. T he j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns give n in thi s ca se re qui re d the St at e to p ro ve be y ond 18 a re as ona

ble doub t tha t D ef

en dant “ ca

use d [ Ch ildre n] to en ga ge in se xua l i nte rc our se 19 an d/o r an al int er co ur se , or c au se d th e ins er

tio n to a ny

e xte nt, of

his pe nis a nd/ or16

1 fi nge rs int o th e va gin a an d/o r anus o f [C hil dr en ] , ” tha t Chi ldr en w er e “ unde r the a ge 2 of th irt een ,” a nd tha t the a ct s ha ppe ne d inN ewMe xic o onor be tw ee n Augus t 15 , 3 20 12 an d Oct ob er 1 3, 2 01 2. See U JI 14- 957 N MR A

. T he y w er e dif fe re nti at ed

onl y 4 insofar as they

gave the nam e of ea ch child in six instruction s per child. T hey 5 co m bi ne d tw o ty

pe s of int er co ur se a nd s ex ua l c ondu ct ( “ se xua l i nte rc our se a nd/ or 6 an al int er co ur se ”) in the sam e co unt

. A tr ia l co urt ha s a duty “ to w ith dr aw a ca se f ro m 7 the j ury and direct a verdict for a def endant when the State has f ailed to com e forw ard 8 with substant ial evid en ce that the defendant com m itted the offense charged. ” Sta te 9 v. Maes , 200 7- NMCA-0 89, ¶ 22, 142 N

. M. 276 , 164 P

. 3d 9 75 ( int er na l qu otatio n 10 m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 11 1. Patt ern of Cond uct 12 { 25} Ch ildre n te sti fi ed a s to apa tte rnof

c ondu ct w he re D ef

en dant w ould put

his 1 3 pe nis an d f

i n g e r s i n e a c h c h i l d ’ s v a g i n aa n da n u s b e f o r e s h e w e n tt o s c h o o l i n t he 14 m or nin gs. T he te sti m ony

r ev ea le d D ef

en dant d id this to both C hil d 1 and Ch ild 2. 15 Children testified that D efendant did this m ore than six tim es, w ith on ly one instance 16 tied to a potenti ally ascerta inable but unproven date (the first day of school). N o other 17 ev ide nc e tie d asin gl e inc ide nt t o ac er ta in t im e or

pla ce . Ch ildre n w er e ab le to 18 describe an er ect m ale penis as we ll as ej aculation , an d testim ony wa s given th at 19 children of that age would not have been able to do so without havin g seen it before.17

1 Undiffer entiated m

ultip le acts against a victim within a period of tim e is evidence 2 suff i ci en t u n d er D om ing ue

z to sup port a conviction on one coun t per child for a 3 pa tte rnof

c ondu ct

. 4 { 26} Ch il d 1 prov ide d no te sti m ony a t tri al r eg ar din g any

spe ci fi c ins tanc es of 5 ab use . I n f

ac t, w he n the St at e as ke d her ab out a spe ci fi c inc ide nt— the put at ive la st 6 one be fo re the inc ide nts w er e re porte d—s he c oul d no t r em em be r an d di d no t pr ovi de 7 an y de ta ils r eg ar din g w ha t oc curr ed , ti m ing , or loc at ion

. Ch ild

2 a lso did not 8 re m em be r an y spe ci fi c de ta ils ab out a la st inc ide nt of ab use or when it occurr ed

. 9 G randm oth er

te sti fi ed to ir ri ta tio n onCh ild

1’ s ge nit al s th at

she dis co ve re d on 10 O ct obe r 13, 201 2, pr ior to the tr ip t o th e hosp ita l that pr om pte d C hil dr ento dis cl ose 11 the abuse

. H ow ev er , Ch ildre n w er e not e xa m ine d a t a ll w he n a t the hos pit al , a nd 12 Children wer e not phy sically exam ined until two and a h alf weeks afte r Children w ere 1 3 ta k e n t o t h e h o s p i t a l t o b e e x a m i n e db y ap e d i a t r i c i a n w h o f

o u n dn o p h y s i c a l s ign s 14 of abuse on either child. T hus, no injuries existed to tie to any proxim ate ac t of abuse, 15 either a s a ca use of injury , or with regar d to the tim ing of abuse. T he pediatrician 16 testified that her finding was no ind ication that abus e had not taken place and that 17 know le dge of

suc h t hi ng s is com

m on i n c as es w he re abuse ha d oc curr ed

. T he 18 pe diatr ic ian a lso te sti fi ed that C hil dr en ’ s d e s cr ipt ion s to he r of se xua l be ha vio r w oul d 1 9 n o t , i n h erb el i ef

, b e p o s s i b l e f

ro m g i rl s o f C h i l d re n ’s ag es wi t h o u ts o m e t ra u ma18

1 ha vi ng oc cu rred , a nd th at on e of th e gi rls de sc rib ed “ m ix ed em ot io ns of be in g a frai d.” 2 Wh i l e t h i s t e s t i m o n y

c o rr o b o r a t e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f ab u s e , i ts t i l l s up p o rt s n oth ing 3 m or e than age ne ra l c ount f or D ef en dant’ s c our se of co nduc t w ith re gard to Ch ild 1. 4 { 27} Ch ild

2’ s r es pons es about

the day befo re sc hool start ed w er e spe ci fi ca lly 5 lim ite d to D ef

en dant’ s a ct ion s tow ar d he r al one , an d did not inv olv e Ch ild 1. A ga in, 6 the c ri m e atta ch ed

to the da te w as not pr ove n be ca use the da te sc hool start ed w as not 7 pr ove n to be w ith in the c harg ing pe ri od s ta te d inthe ind ic tm en t. 8 { 28} Ch ild

2 ha d no r ec oll ec tio n a s to a spe ci fi c fi na l i nc ide nt o f ab use , a lth oughthe 9 St ate at te m

pt ed to tie the e nd o f the pe ri od i n w hic h a buse oc curr ed

to O ct obe r 13, 10 2012 , when Gra n d m other observed irritation on Child 1’s genital ar ea, and Mother 11 too k C hil dr ento the e m er ge nc y r oom . G randm oth er

te sti fi ed that this w as the se co nd 1 2 i n s t a n c e o f

s u c h i rr i t a t i o n , h a v i n g s e e n as i mi l a r o u tb r e a k amo n t h p r e v i o u s l y. 13 D et ec tiv e Mart ine z te sti fi ed that, ac co rd ing to i nte rv ie w s w ithMo the r, she tol d hi m 14 at the hos pit al that the la st inc ide nt ha d oc curr ed ei the r six to ei ght day s pr ior to the 15 hosp ital visit, or as stated in a later interview, actually “ up to fourteen day s” before 16 Children wer e taken to the hosp ital on O ctober 13, 2012. As to this or other instances 17 of abuse, G randm other did no t check Child 2 for sim ilar inj uries to thos e she reported 18 w ithr eg ar d to Ch ild 1. T his te sti m ony ag ai n su ppor ts n o m or e than asin gle “ co ur se 19 of co nduct” c ount

a ga i ns tD e f

e nd a nt

. T o a l l owc ount s r e l a t i ng t o sp e c i f i c a l l e ge d19

1 occurrence s to be decided by a j ury without suffic ient evidence would l ea v e a j ury 2 una ble to dis tin gui sh be tw ee n an y sin gle ac t and the ge ne ra l c our se of c ondu ct , giv ing 3 ri se to the doub le j eo pardy pr obl em of pos sib le m

ult ipl e co nvi ct ion s f

or the sam e ac t. 4 { 29} Fo r la ck

of spe ci fi ci ty as to tim e, da te , pla ce , or oth er dis tin gui shi ng f

ac ts, the 5 te sti m ony

pr es en te d a t tr ia l supp orte d no m or e than one co unt as to ea ch ch ild f or the 6 patte rn of

c on du c tt hati nc l ud e d t he s i x a l l e ge d i nc i de nt s pe r c hi l d, a nd

t he district 7 co urt sh oul d have dir ec te d ave rd ic t an d al low ed no m or e than tho se tw o c ount s—o ne 8 fo r ea ch vic tim

—t o go to the j ur

y ba se d on a pa tte rnof

c ondu ct

. See State v. Chavez , 9 2008 -N MC A -1 26, ¶

23, 145 N

. M. 11, 193 P

. 3d 5 58, re v’d on oth er gro unds , 10 20 09 -N MS C- 035, 146 N

. M. 434 , 211 P

. 3d 8 91; Sta te v . Ca sta ñe da , 200 1- N MCA11 052, ¶ 15, 130 N

. M. 679 , 30 P

. 3d 3 68 ( hol din g that one c ont inu ous ac t am ount ing to 12 child abuse no t invo lving h ar m to m ultip le victim s supp orts onlyone count; where 13 harm oc curs , “ it is e nti re ly

appr opr ia te to ch ar ge the pe rp etrator w ith a se parate c ount 14

. . . for ea ch victim ”). 15 { 30} W e conclude that there w as sufficient evidence presented at tr ial to supp ort 16 onl y tw o of the tw el ve co unt s br ough t ag ai nst D ef en dant, an d tho se ba se d on ly upo n 17 a co ur se of

c ondu ct w ithr eg ar d to e ac h c hil d. 18 C. Brady Violations 19 { 31} D ef

en dant arg ue s that the St at e eng ag ed in m isc ondu ct by fa ili ng t o di sc los e20

1 ev ide nc e that w as m at er ia l t o hi s de fe nse . D ef en dant pro pe rl y pr es er

ve d this iss ue by 2 m ak ing a tim el y obj ec tio n at tr ia l. In a m oti on to dis m iss , de fe nse co unse l po int ed to 3 two instances in wh i ch the State f ailed to provid e m aterial e vidence that was 4 favor ab le to the de fe nse . D ef en dant’ s f

ir st c laim of erro r is tha t the S ta te f ai le d to 5 ei th er a cknow le dge the e xis te nc e of or pr ovi de c opi es of

ar ep ort w ri tte n by

the 6 pe diatr ic ian w ho e xa m ine d C hil d 1 an d Chil d 2 unti l j ust be fo re tr ia l st ar

te d. 7 De fendant’ s second claim of err or is that the State did not di sclose that Mother had 8 ap pli ed f or avis a that, be ca

use of he r part ic ipatio n inthi s c as e an d c oope ratio n w ith 9 lawe nf

or ce m en t, wou ld al lowhe r to r em ai n inthe c ountry le ga lly dur ing the 10 pe nde nc y

of thi s su it. W e ex am ine e ac h a sse rt ionin tur n. 11 1. Stand ard of R eview 12 { 32} In N ew Me xic o, a n a lle ge d B radyviolatio n equates to a charge of prosec utorial 13 m isc onduc t, wh ic h app el la te co ur ts rev ie w foran ab us e o f di sc ret io n. St at e v. Tr uj illo , 14 2002 -N MS C- 005, ¶¶ 48, 50, 131 N

. M. 709, 42 P. 3d 814. A s su ch , w e w ill a ff irm the 15 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n “ unl es s it s rul ing w as a rb itr ar y , c ap ri ci ous, or

be y ond 16 reason.” Sta te v . T

urr ie tta , 2013-NMS C-036, ¶ 35, 308 P.3d 964 (alter ation, internal 17 quot at ion m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ); see Case v. Hatch , 200 8- N MS C- 024, ¶ 47, 18 144 N

. M. 20, 183 P

. 3d 9 05 ( not ing that “ the tr ia l c ourt is in the be st p osi tio n to 19 ev al ua te the sig nif

ic an ce of a ny a lle ge d pr ose cu tor ia l e rr or s” ( int er na l qu otatio n21

1 m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 2 2. Legal Standard 3 { 33} A def

endant’ s due process rights are v iolated when the prosecution su ppresses 4 fav or ab le ev id en ce. B rady , 373 U.S. a t 86 -8 7; Tr im ble v . Sta te , 196 5- N MS C- 055, 5 ¶ 12, 75 N

. M. 183 , 402 P

. 2d 1 62 ( ap ply ing B rady ). A de fe ndant see kin g di sm iss al f or 6 a B rady v i o l a t i o n m

u s t p r o v e t h r e e e l e m e n t s : ( 1 ) e v i d e n c e w a s s up p r e s s e d b ythe 7 pr ose cu tio n; (2 ) the supp re sse d ev ide nc e w as favor ab le to the de fe ndant; a nd ( 3) the 8 su pp res se d e vi de nc e was m at eri al to th e d efen se . Tu rri et ta , 201 3- N MS C- 036, ¶ 35. 9 In order to be m aterial under B rady , the re m us t be “ ‘a re as ona

ble pr oba bil ity that, 10 ha d th e ev ide nc e be endis cl ose d to the de fe nse , the r es ult of the pr oc ee din g w ou ld 11 h av e b een differ ent.’ ” State v. B aca , 1 9 9 3

- N M C A

- 0 5 1 , ¶ 2 1 , 1 1 5 N

. M

. 5 3 6 , 8 54 12 P. 2d 3 63 ( quot ing United States v. B agley , 473 U.S. 6 6 7 , 682 (198 5)). When 13 considering m ateriality , we place the supp ressed evidence in the context of the entire 14 re co rd , r athe r than view ing it in isol at ion

. “ Im pli ci t i n th e standard

of m at er ia lity

is 15 the n ot io n that the sig nif ic an ce of a ny part ic ular bit

of e vid en ce c anonl y

be 16 determ ined by

com parison to th e re st.” Tr uji llo , 2002-NMS C-005, ¶ 50 (internal 17 qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 18 { 34} The Sta te po in ts to ou r Supr em e Co ur t’s ca se , Sta te v . R onde au , 1976-NMS C19 044, ¶ 40 , 89 N

. M. 408 , 553 P

. 2d 6 88, a s su ppor t f or it s a sse rt ionthat be ca

use the22

1 pediatrician’ s report and inform ation regarding Moth e r ’ s U

- V i sa w e re not suppressed 2 through out th e entire tr ial, suppression of that evid ence cannot constitu te a Bra dy 3 vio la tio n. I n R onde au , our S upr em e Co urt i nte rp re te d B radyto m ean that wher e 4 ev ide nc e is f

ound duri ng tria l, r athe r than a ft er the tr ia l, no B radyvio la tio n e xis ts. 5 R onde au , 197 6- N MS C- 044, ¶ 40 ( “ W e int er

pr et [ B rady ] to m ean that a convicted 6 de fe ndant w oul d be e nti tle d to ar etri al w he re the pr ose cu tio n su ppr es se d, thr ough out 7 the w hol e tr ia l, e xc ulp at or y e vid en ce m at er ia l t o th e gui lt or pun ish m en t of

the 8 de fen da nt .”). 9 { 35} W e believe A ltg ilb er s , 1989 -N MC A -1 60, is m or e pe rs ua siv e an d a ppl ic ab le in 10 thi s c as e. I n A ltg ilb er s , a de fe ndant as se rt ed that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef usa l t o gr an t 11 a m istrial resulted in a violatio n of his du e p ro ce s s rights where he discovered 12 al le ge dl y ex cu lp at ory ev id en ce th ro ug h a wit ne ss ’s s ta te m en ts du rin g t ria l. Id

. ¶ 25. 13 This Court, in d ec i ding the case, drewa distinction betwee n evidence disclosed 14 du rin g t ria l an d e vi de nc e d is co ve redon ly after t he tri al ha d c on cl ud ed

. Se e id. ¶ 26. 15 W e re as one d th at , ba se d onthi s di sti nc tio n, “ [t ] he da m ag e to [ the ] defenda nt 16 the re fo re m

ust li e in any

im pa irm en t t o hi s ta ct ic al use of the e vid en ce be ca

use of 17 del ayed disclosu re[, ] ” but concluded th at the “ im posit ion of a barrier

to m ore 18 ef fe ct ive use of ev ide nc e w oul d have sub stanti al ly le ss i m pa ct than to ta l de pr ivatio n 19 of us e. ” Id

. Rathe r than c re at e a standard e sta bli shi ng “pr ec ise ly

howto w ei gh any23

1 p ar t i cu l arfa ct o r i n d et er m i n i n g wh et h er d el ayed d i s cl o s u re v i o l at es du e p ro ce s s [, ]” 2 this Court in stead reasoned t hat there was s ufficient reason to conclude that delay ed 3 dis cl osur e “ did

not de pr ive [ the ] de fe ndant o f fundam en ta l f ai rn es s, whi chis the 4 essence of due process. ” Id

. ¶ 28. 5 { 36} Though we ac knowledge the d i s t i nction b etwe en discovery of suppressed 6 ev ide nc e du r i n g a n da f t e r t r i a l , w e s e e n o r e a s o n t o w h o l l y d e p a rtf r o m the 7 co nsi de ratio ns o f m at er ia lity a nd p re j udi ce se t f

orth i n B rady

. I ns t e a d, w e rea d 8 A ltg ilb er

s to re qui re ac onsi de ratio n of th ose f ac tor s ina n a sse ssm en t of the 9 fu nd am en ta l fa irn es s o f th e p ro ceed in gs . See 198 9- N MC A -1 06, ¶ 28. I n Bagleya nd 10 Kyles , the U nit ed

S ta te s S upr em e Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at B rady is ai m ed a t pr om oti ng 11 th e effe ct iv e us e o f ev id en ce. See B agley , 473 U

. S. a t 67 6; Kyles v. W hitley , 514 U.S

. 1 2 4 1 9 , 4 3 7 (19 95 ). A ltg ilb er s si m i l ar ly

acknowledges that the State’ s provid ing m aterial 13 ev ide nc e dur ing tr ia l st an ds a s an “ im posi tio n of

aba rri er to m or e ef

fe ct ive use of 14 evidence[. ] ” 1 989-NMCA -106, ¶ 26. Thus, it stands to reason that while post-trial 15 d i s co very

of evidence under B rady r e qu i r e s “ a r e a s o n ab l e p r o b ab i l i t y t h a t

. . . the 16 re sul t of

the pr oc ee din g wou ld hav e bee n diff er en t[ , ] ” disc ove ry

of e vid en ce dur ing 17 tr ia l r equir es a n e va luatio n of w he the r the la te te nde r ha s im pe de d the ef

fe ct ive use 18 of e vid en ce in suc h aw ay

that im pa ct s the fundam en ta l f

ai rn es s of the pr oc ee din gs. 19 A ltg ilb er

s , 198 9- N MC A -1 06, ¶

27.24

1 3. Pe diatrician’s R eport 2 { 37} It

is hard to im ag ine m or e m at er ia l e vid en ce in a ch ild -r ap e ca se than th e 3 results of m edical exam ination s of the victim s. “ The Brady re qui re m en t of dis cl osi ng 4 such m aterial a

pplies to all m em

bers of the prosecut orial team , including po lice 5 authorities.” State v. W isniewski , 1985 -N MS C- 079, ¶ 21, 103 N

. M. 430, 70 8 P. 2d 6 1031 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ); see Kyles , 514 U .S

. at 437 (statin g that in th e context of a 7 B radyvio la tio n, “ the ind ivi dua l pr ose cu tor ha s aduty

to le ar n of a ny f av or ab le 8 ev ide nc e known to the oth er s a ct ing on the gove rn m en t’ s be ha lf in the c as e, inc lud ing 9 the police”). Alth o u g h i t ap pears unclear from the rec ord when the State had 10 poss es sio n of the pe diatr ic ian’ s re port, it is undi sput ed that the pr ose cu tio n, thr ough 11 it s i nv es ti ga ti ng de te ct iv e, kn ew “ wha t th e m ed ic al reco rd s were go in g to refl ect .” As 12 such, the k n o wl ed ge that Child 1 and Chi ld 2 had un dergone a phy sical 13 ex am inatio n—a

f ac t un known t o Defen dant unti l j ust be fo re the start

of the 14 trial—wa s im

puted to the State. The State a lso had kn owl ed g e o f the exculpatory 15 aspects of t he report, i.e. , that neither Child 1 nor Child 2 had suffere d any phy sical 16 inj ur ie s to the ir

r ep ro duc tiv e or gans. 17 { 38} Though the pediatrician’ s report is not in th e re cord before us, accor ding to her 18 te sti m ony , she c onc lud ed that the r es ult s of

the e xa m inatio ns w er e co nsi ste nt w itha 19 ch ild who ha d a his tor

y of be ing se xua lly

abuse d. T his e vid en ce is cl earl y not25

1 fa v o rab l e to De fe n d an t . On ap p ea l , Def en d an t as s er t s erro r in t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’s 2 refusal to grant a dism issal based on the late disclosure of the pediatrician’ s report 3 be ca use de fe nse c ouns el was no t a ble to que sti on the pe diatr ic ian pr ior to tr ia l or 4 c o n s u l ti t s o w ne x p e rtab o u tt h e p e d i a t r i c i a n ’s r e p o rta n d c o n c l u s i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, 5 D ef en dant a sse rt s th at

ha d he be en ab le to int er

vie w the pe diatr ic ian pr ior to ca lli ng 6 he r as a w itn es s, he w oul d have be enable to m or e ef fe ct ive ly que sti on h er

r eg ar din g 7 dis tin ct ion s be tw ee n dif fe re nt kin ds of vic tim s, as sault s, a nd i nj ur ie s. D ef en dant a lso 8 lam ents his in ability

to consul t with an expert of his ow n, and he poin ts to contrar y 9 e v i d e n c e t h a tc o u l dh a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e dt o r e f u t e t h e p e d i a t r i c i a n ’s t e s t i mo n y. 10 { 39} A t no poi nt s ubse que nt t o th e re port’ s di sc los ur e dur ing the pr oc eedi ngs did 11 D ef en dant o r de fe nse co unse l re que st a con tinuanc e to all ow fo r anint er vie wof the 12 pe diatr ic ian. W e al so n ote that de fe nse c ouns el did little to sec ur e anint er vie ww ith 13 the pe diatr ic ian pr ior

to ca lli ng he r as a w itn es s on his be ha lf

. D ef en dant p oin ts t o no 14 ev ide nc e to s ugge st tha t he a tte m pte d to se cure an int er

vie ww iththe pe diatr ic ian, 15 de spi te knowin g th at she w oul d no t be te sti fy ing unt il the se co nd d ay of tr ia l. 1 6 A d d i t i o n a l l y , D e f

e n d a n t ’ s a r g u m e n to n ap p e a l a s s e rt s p r e j u d i c e i n h i s i n ab i l i t y

to 17 pr es en t e vid en ce that co uld ha ve be enuse d to r ef

ute e vid en ce that the S ta te ini tia lly 18 supp ressed but that he him self then pre sented at trial. As such, we stand unp ersuaded 19 that the e vid en ce su ppre sse d by the S ta te —the pe diatr ic ian’ s e xa m inatio n and14 W e not e he re that our co nc lus iona s to the pe diatr ic ian’ s r ep ort do es not 4 15 condon e the State ’ s behavior in th is case. 16 Ac cording to th e U .S . C itizenship and Im m igration Services, a U -V isa is set 5 17 as ide fo r vic tim s of ce rt ai n cr im es w ho h av e be enm en ta lly or phy sic al ly

hurt, a nd i t 18 is available to thos e w ho were , are, or are likely to be “ helpful to t h e p o l i ce or law 19 en fo rcem en t” in th e in ve st ig at io n o r pr os ecu ti on of a cri m e. See St an fo rd L awS ch ool 20 Im m ig ran ts Rig ht s C li ni c, G et tin g a U -V isa : I m m i g r a t io n h el

p f or vic ti ms o f cr ime 21 6 ( 2012 ) htt

ps: //w ww . ilr c. or g/s ite s/d ef

a u l t/f ile s/r es our ce s/p ro se uvi sam an ua l_e ngl ish

. 22 pdf. 26 1 re port—

w as f av or ab le to D ef

en dant. H ad

it be en tru lyf

av or ab le , D ef

en dant w oul d 2 not ha ve spe nt se ve ra l pa ge s of his br ie f ex pla ini ng w ithpart ic ulari ty howhe w oul d 3 have und er

m ine d th e pe diatr ic ia

n’ s co nc lu si on s. We th eref or e co nc lu de th at , although 4 the S ta te did

e rr in supp re ssi ng the pe diatr ic ia n’s rep ort, D ef en dant h as f

ai le d to 5 de m on st rate the pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct ne ce ssary

f or r ev er sa l. Se e Tu rri et ta ,

4 6 2013 -N MS C- 036, ¶

35

. 7 4. U -V isa A pp lic at ion 8 { 40} W e fi nd m or e m er it in D ef en dant’ s a sse rt ionthat the S ta te ’ s su ppr es sio n of 9 inform ation regarding Moth er’ s U- Visa a pplication am ount s to a seriou s discov ery 10 violatio n. De fendant asserts that the State’ s supp ression of the fact that Mot h er

5 11 soug ht a

U -V isa de pr ive d hi m

of a n op portun ity

to im pe ac h on e of

the S ta te ’ s m ai n 12 w itn es se s by

pr ovi din g e vid en ce that M ot her ha d astr ong m oti ve —st ay ing in the 13 U nit ed

S ta te s—f

or f ab ri catin g c harg es a ga ins t D ef en dant.27

1 { 41} Recognizing the im portance o f th e U-V isa to De fendant’ s case, on the first day 2 of tr ia l the dis tr ic t c ourt or de re d th e St at e to o bta in a c opy of the vis a ap pli catio n and 3 provide it to De fendant. F ollowing that order, the district attorney ’ s office provided 4 De fendant a re ceipt for the U- Visa application dated April 10, 2013. The district court 5 ag ai n di re ct ed

the S ta te to obta in and pr ovi de a cop y of the appl ic at ionto D ef

en dant. 6 A ft er be ing or de re d to pr oduc e the appl ic at ion , the S ta te incorr ec tly r ep re se nte d to 7 the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t i t ha d on ly thr ee pa ge s of the tw en ty -thr ee pa ge appl ic at iona nd 8 cl ai m ed

to ha ve giv enD ef

en dant a cc es s to tho se thr ee pa ge s. 9 { 42} Th e s e c o n dd a y o f t r i a l , t h e S t a t e p r o du c e dt h e v i s a ap p l i c a t i o n i n i t s e n t i r e t y. 10 T he appl ic at ionide nti fi ed the T hir d Ju dic ia l D istri ct A tto rn ey ’s Of

fi ce a s th e 1 1 ce rt i f y i n g a g e n c y

a n dw a s d a t e di n D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2

. A l t h o u g h t h e ap p l i ca tio n 12 refe renced attac hed m ater i a l s, i nc l ud i ng a m e m or and

um f r om the i nvestigating officer 13 in thi s ca se an d af

fi da vit s an d le tte rs int en din g to of fe r pr oof that Mother was “ the 14 in di rect vi ct im

of a qu al ifyin g c rime,” none of t h o s e o t h er m aterials w ere included 15 with the app lication in the disclos ure th at the State m ade. The district court dem anded 16 that the S ta te se ek

a nd p ro vid e thos e m at er ia ls and a dm oni she d th e St at e fo r fa ili ng 1 7 to provid e the U -V i s a i n fo rmat i o n du ri n g d i s co v ery. Def en d an t , a ft erre ceiving copies 18 of the letters and affidavits attached to and refe renced in th e application, ar gued that 19 the late di s cl o s u re of these m aterials constituted a B radyvio la tio n and a ga in28

1 re que ste d di sm iss al

. T he dis tr ic t cour t aga in den ie d D ef

en dant’ s m oti on t o di sm iss , 2 but sugg es te d that if de fe nse co unse l fe lt the c as e ha d be enc om pr om ise d, he c oul d 3 “ com bat that” by

using the docum ents that had been p ro d u ce d t hat day when 4 questio ning the rem aining witnesses. In re aching this decision, the district court 5 reasoned that allowing De fendant to questio n Mother regarding im m igration iss ues 6 related to the U -V isa could be “ interpreted as a sanction agains t the State f or failure 7 to di sc lo se so m et hi ng th atth ey cle arl y kn ew ab ou t.” 8 { 43} It i s cl ear f

ro m th e rec or d t ha t t h e S t a t e su pp res se d t he pro du ct io n o f th e U9 V isa appl ic at ionto D ef

en dant. A lth oughthe S ta te m ad e re pe at ed r ep re se ntatio ns t o 10 the dis tr ic t cour

t tha t it had no know le dge of the U -V isa

appl ic at ion , the kno w le dge 11 of th e m em

be r s o f th e St at e’s pr os ecu ti on tea m is im pu te d o n t he Sta te

. See 12 W isniewski , 198 5-NMSC- 079, ¶ 21. T he appl ic at ionc ont ai ne d le tte rs f ro m 13 ind ivi dua ls w ith in the di str ic t a tto rn ey ’ s of fi ce , a s w el l a s am em or an dum f ro m the 14 inv es tig at ing de te ct ive in thi s c as e. Mo the r ac know le dge d th at she r ec ei ve d he lp f

ro m 1 5 t h e l o ca l p o l i ce d ep ar t m en t i n o b t ai n i n g an d co m p l et i n g t h e U-V i s a ap p l i ca t i o n . We 16 agree with the district court’ s assessm ent in this regar d: “ It w ouldhave been a ver y 17 appropriate docum ent to share. .

. . [ It] has way too m any item s that cam e in suppo rt 18 of it f ro m the [ d] istri ct

[ a] tto rn ey ’ s of

fi ce an d fr om

lawe nf or ce m en t. T hose 19 co m po ne nt s o f [t he ap pl ic at io n] cert ai nl y sh ou ldha ve be en pa rt o f th e d is co ve ry .”29

1 { 44} T hr ough out

the tr ia l be low , it

is cl ear that the St at e w as not fo rthc om ing w ith 2 inform ation r egarding the U- Visa. The State’ s represe ntation s to the district c o u rt 3 re gard ing the U -V isa

e vol ve d th ro ugho ut the tr ia l, be gin nin g w ithade nia l of 4 know le dge of

it s e xis te nc e an d e ndi ng w ithpr oduc tio n of atw en ty -thr ee pa ge 5 application as we ll as letters fr om indiv iduals working in the district attorney ’ s office 6 and a m em orandum

from the investig ating detective. T he S ta te ’ s a ct ua l kn ow le dge 7 of the ap pli catio n is, in thi s ca se , ad equa te ev ide nc e fo r us t o c onc lud e that the S ta te 8 er re d insup pr es sin g th e U -V isa im pe ac hm en t e vid en ce a nd a cknow le dge th at th e fi rs t 9 prong of the B radyte st i s satis fi ed

. 10 { 45} It

is al so c le ar

that the e vid en ce sup pr es se d w as f av or ab le to D ef

en dant. 11 Im peachm ent evidence, a s we ll as exculpatory evidence, falls w ithin the Brady rule, 12 as both are “ ‘ evidence favorable to an accused. ’ ” Bagley , 473 U

. S. a t 67 6 ( quot ing 13 B rady , 373 U

. S. at

87) ; cf. State v. B aca , 1995 -N MS C- 045, ¶ 39, 120 N

. M. 383 , 902 14 P. 2d 6 5 ( co nsi de ri ng “ eg re gio us e rr or ” of im pr ope r e x c l u s i o no f

e v i d e n c e im

pe ac hin g 15 the S ta te ’ s pri m ar

y w itn es s in conc lud ing cu m ulativ e er ro r oc curr ed ). H ad

the U -V isa 16 inf or m at io n b een di sc lo se d e arl ie r, Defen da nt co ul d have que sti one d th e inv es tig at ing 17 de te ct ive r eg ar din g hi s i nv olv em en t i n M oth er ’ s vi sa appl ic at ion

. D ef

en dant c oul d 18 have i n t er v iewe d the people who sub m itted the letters and affidavits that 19 ac co m

panie d th e visa ap pli catio n to de te rm ine Mo the r’ s po sit ionr eg ar din g he r status12 U.S. Cit iz en sh ip an d Imm ig rat io n S erv ic es , Victim s of Criminal Activity: U 6 13 No nim m igrant

Sta tus , De partm ent of Hom eland Security (July 28, 2 0 16), 1 4 https: //w w w . usc is. gov/ hum a n i t a r i a n / v i c t i m s - h u m a n - t r af fi ck ing -o the r- cr im es /vi ct i 15 m s- cr im ina l- ac tiv ity -u -n oni m m igra nt -s ta tu s/ vi ct im s- cri m ina l- ac tiv ity -u -n oni m m ig 16 ran t-s ta tu s; Sta nf

or d Law Sc ho ol Im

m ig ran ts ’ Ri gh ts Cli ni c, G et tin g a U- V isa : 17 I m m igr ati on h e l p fo r v i c tim s ofc rime 4 (20 12), 18 https ://ww w. ilrc. org/sites/d efault/files/resources/proseuvisam anual_engli sh.pdf. 19 U.S. Cit iz en sh ip an d Imm ig rat io n S erv i ces , Victim s of Criminal Activity: U

7 20 N o n i m m i gr a n t St a tus , Departm ent of Hom eland Security (July 28, 2016), 21 htt ps: // www.us ci s.g ov /h um an it ari an /v ic ti m s- hu m an -tr affi ck ing -o the r- cr im es /vi ct i 2 2 m s- cr im i n a l

- a c t i v i t y - u - n o n i m m i g r a n t

- s t a tu s / v i c t i m s - c r i m i n a l

- a c tiv ity -u -n oni mm ig 23 ran t-s ta tu s; Sta nf

or d Law Sc ho ol Im

m ig ran ts ’ Ri g h t s C li ni c, G et tin g a U -V isa : 24 Immig r a t i o n h e l p f o r vi c t ims of cri m e 5 (2012), 25 https ://ww w. ilrc. org/sites/d efault/files/resources/proseuvisam anual_engli sh.pdf. 30 1 as a n il le ga l i m

m igr an t. D ef

en dant c oul d also ha ve pr es en te d e vid en ce r eg ar din g th e 2 U -V isa pr oc es s its el f. S uc h in fo rm at ioninc lud es the f ac t tha t M oth er

a nd C hil d 1 and 3 Ch ild 2 c oul d le ga lly

li ve in the U nit ed

S ta te s f or f our y ears a nd w oul d be e lig ibl e to 4 apply for a green car d to liv e here perm anent ly after three y ears. Thus, if Mother

6 5 w er e suc ce ssf

ul i n ob ta ini ng a

U -V isa , she c oul d se cure U nit ed S ta te s c iti ze nshi p f

or 6 not onl y he rs el f, but

he r daught er s a s w el l. 7 7 { 46} In ste ad

of pr of fe ri ng tha t e vid en ce , D ef en da nt wa s on ly

a llo w ed to que sti on 8 M o t h erab o u tt h e U -V i s a. Whe n as k ed wh at a U -V i s a i s , M o t h erre p l i ed , “ I d o n ’t 9 know. I t’ s som ething con di t i o n al .” Mother adm itted to havi ng been deported on ce 1 0 before in 20 0 6 . S u ch ev i d en ce , v i ew ed i nco n ju n ct i o n wi t h t h e i m

p ea ch m en tev idence 11 re gard ing the U -V isa , w oul d have be enr el ev an t t o th e iss ue of Mo the r’ s po ssi ble31

1 bias; Moth er, as an illegal im m igrant, subm itted a visa application with the assistance 2 of the State and the inv estigating officer that could allow her to rea p subs ta n t i al 3 im m igr at ionbe ne fi ts f

or Ch ildre n and h er se lf

thr oughinv olv em en t in th is c as e 4 ag ai nst D ef en dant. S uc h e vid en ce w oul d un doub te dly be f av or ab le to D ef

en dant. 5 { 47} Fi na lly , it

appe ar s f ro m the natur e of

the e vid en ce sup pr es se d a s w el l a s th e 6 central r ole of the witness whom it im peached, there is a r easonable probabilit y that 7 the result of the trial w ouldhave b ee n d iffer ent if the im peachm ent evidence 8 regarding the U- Visa had been properly disclosed. Mother’ s influence over other 9 te st ifyin g wi tn es se s h as i mp l i c a t i o n s fo r m uc h o f th e ev id en ce i n t hi s ca se . As 10 ev ide nc e of bia s and eve n apos sib le m oti va tio n f or ly ing or f ab ri catin g a lle ga tio ns, 11 it ta int s no t on ly

he r ow n te sti m on y , b ut al so the te sti m ony of Ch ildre n and 12 G randm oth er . A s su ch , e vid en ce r eg ar din g th e ve ra ci ty of Mothe r’ s st at em en ts o r 13 ev ide nc e that sh e w as bia se d a ga ins t D ef en dant i s m at er ia l t o th e out co m e of 14 Defen da nt ’s tri al . Defen da nt ha s d em on st rat edth at ev id en ce rega rd in g Mot he r’s U15 V isa appl ic at ionw as sup pr es se d, w as f av or ab le to him , a nd w as m at er ia l t o hi s 16 defense. Although Defendant has dem onstrated all three B radypr ongs , w e loo k a lso 17 to whe the r the sup pr es sio n of the U -V isa

e vid en ce im

pe de d D ef

en dant’ s e ff

ec tiv e use 1 8 o f i ti n s u ch a w ay t h at t h e f ai rn es s o f t h e p ro ce ed i n g s i s ca l l ed i n t o q u e s t i o n . We 19 co nc lude tha t w hil e it w as e rr or f or the S ta te to w ith hol d th e U -V isa appl ic at ion ,32

1 D ef en dant h as not de m onstrate d that thi s erro r, by its el f, is suf fi ci en tly e gr eg iou s to 2 ca ll int o qu es tio n th e fa ir ne ss o f the e nti re tr ia l. 3 D . C um ul at ive Er ro r 4 { 48} “ T he doc tr ine of c um ulativ e er ro r re qui re s r ev er sa l of

ade fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ion 5 when the cum

ulative im

pact of er rors w hich occurred at tria l wa s so prejudicial that 6 the defendant wa s deprived of a fa i r t rial. ” Sta te v . W oodw ard , 199 5- N MS C- 074, 7 ¶ 59, 121 N. M. 1, 908 P.2d 231 (i n t er n al q uotatio n m arks and citation om itted), 8 abro gated on other gro unds as recogniz ed by Sta t e v. M onto ya , 201 4- N MS C- 032, 9 333 P. 3d 9 35. 10 { 49} The district court com m itted num erous error s in this case. As explain ed m ore 11 fu lly above , the dis tr ic t c ourt er re d by not gr an tin g D ef

en dant’ s m oti on f

or abil l of 12 part ic ulars . T he dis tr ic t cou rt erre d by r ef usi ng t o gr an t D ef

en dant’ s m oti on f

or 13 dir ec te d ve rd ic t. The dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in al low ing six ide nti ca l, f ac tua lly 14 undi ff er en tiate d c ount s pe r ch ild , de m onstratin g an un aw ar en es s of the co ur se of 15 co nduc t st an dard s e num er at ed in Dom ingu ez

a nd B ald onad o . T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e 16 que sti ona

ble de ci sio ns r eg ar din g th e St at e’s la te dis cl osur e of the e xa m ini ng 17 pe diatr ic ian’ s r ep ort. T he dis tri ct c ourt a llo w ed the S ta te to im

pr ope rl y w ith hol d 18 m at er ia l e vid en ce r eg ar din g M oth er ’ s U -V isa appl ic at ionthat w as f

av or ab le to 19 D efendant

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a llo w ed the sup pr es sio n of

the U -V isa

inf orm at ion33

1 de spi te the S ta te ’ s r ep eate d r ef usa l t o a cknow le dge that i t ha s aduty to le ar n of a ny 2 favor ab le e vid en ce kno w n to the oth er s a ct ing on the gov e r nm en t’ s be ha lf

a nd d es pit e 3 the State’ s m isleading representations regar ding the level of invo lvem ent that poli ce 4 an d t he di st ric t at to rn ey ha d i n a ss is ti ng Mo th er wi th ap pl y in g fo r th e v is a. 5 { 50} T he dis tr ic t c ourt pe rm itt ed the tr ia l to go fo rw ar d w ith out al low ing D ef en dant 6 any addition al tim e to condu ct a m eaningful review of untim ely disclosed evid ence. 7 Defen da nt was fo rced to cal l a wi tn es s wi th ou t t he be ne fit of a pri ori n t e r v i ew. 8 D es pit e ev en tua lly

be ing giv eninf

orm at ionthat w as ke y

to im pe ac hin g on e of

the 9 State’ s key

witnesses, De fendant had no op portuni ty to effe ctively

use that 10 inf orm at ionto his a dvanta ge . T he j ur y w as the n pr es en te d w ithsix ide nti ca l c ount s 11 pe r ch ild , w ith no w ay to dis tin gui sh be tw ee n ea ch of fe nse or ac t. U nde r the se f ac ts 12 an d ci rcum stanc es , w e cannot c onc lud e that D ef

en dant h ad

af ai r tr ia l. T he se 13 nu m ero us erro rs , con si de redto ge th er, ri se to th e le ve l o f pr ejud ic e so gr eat th atwe 14 m ust c onc lud e D ef

en dant w as de pr ive d of

af ai r tr ia l. 15 III. CON CLU SION 16 { 51} Ba se d onthe f

or eg oin g, w e re ve rs e D ef en dant’ s co nvi ct ion s on t enc ount s of 17 crim inal sexual penetration of a m inor and r em and for dism issal of thos e counts. In 18 ad dit ion , w e re m an d f or D ef en dant t o re ce ive a ne w tr ia l on tw o c ount s r ep re se nti ng 19 a si ng le co ur se of c on du ctas t o e ach ch il d.34

1 { 52} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 3 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e 4 WE CO NCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 6 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 8 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e