Opinion ID: 2570390
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Motion to Reopen

Text: {54} Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to reopen his case in order to present polygraph testimony. Defendant rested his case on December 18, 1997, and the State did not present rebuttal. The trial court recessed the case for a holiday break until January 5, 1998. On January 2, Defendant moved to reopen the case to present the testimony of Peter Pierangeli, a polygraph examiner, in order to counter Wilson's testimony regarding Lausell's polygraph examination. Defense counsel stated that he did not send Lausell's charts to an expert for evaluation until after the close of evidence. Pierangeli stated that defense counsel first contacted him on December 24, 1997. Defense counsel stated that he had insufficient funds to pay the witness to testify and that he paid for the witness through personal funds. {55} Pierangeli stated that he received Lausell's charts and that his initial opinion was that the charts were deceptive. Pierangeli stated that he later received a copy of the pretest interview of Lausell and that he would not have evaluated the charts because the pretest was invalid. He believed that the pretest was invalid due to the pauses on the tape, where the recorder was shut off and then resumed. {56} This Court reviews a trial court's denial of a motion to reopen the case after the close of evidence for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Ortega, 112 N.M. 554, 573, 817 P.2d 1196, 1215 (1991). Two factors which appellate courts consider in this context are the extent to which the movant used due diligence to obtain the testimony and the probable value of that testimony. See State v. Padilla, 118 N.M. 189, 198, 879 P.2d 1208, 1217 (Ct.App.1994) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen the case [i]n view of Defendants' failure to use due diligence to obtain [a witness's] attendance and the minimal value of the proffered testimony where defendants did not reveal the witness's name or subpoena him until after the first day of trial, creating scheduling conflicts with the witness). {57} Defendant's trial counsel was clearly aware that the State was using polygraph expert testimony and did not attempt to secure the rebuttal polygrapher to testify until after the close of evidence in this case. Although Defendant argues that reopening the case for this testimony would have caused little or no prejudice to the State, the prosecutor argued that he would need at least two weeks for adequate preparation, including time to find additional experts. The State notes that approximately two weeks had elapsed while the court was in recess, and if the State needed two weeks to prepare, the jury would have a break of at least one month, which would be burdensome. {58} Defendant argues that his trial counsel stated that he was to blame but that Defendant should not be punished as a result and, if defense counsel is at fault, then Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant claims that Pierangeli's testimony was essential to his case because his testimony would counter Wilson's, and Wilson's testimony supported the credibility of Lausell, which in turn supported the credibility of Beckley. {59} The State notes that Pierangeli strongly believed that the polygraph test should not have been given because of the pretest issues and was very reluctant to offer an opinion regarding the charts because the scoring of the test would be invalid. Thus, the State argues, Pierangeli's opinion that the charts were deceptive was unreliable. The State further argues that Pierangeli's remaining testimony was cumulative to defense counsel's aggressive cross-examination of Wilson. {60} This Court has rejected a similar argument by a defendant in State v. Hernandez, 115 N.M. 6, 13, 846 P.2d 312, 319 (1993), in which the defendant attributed inability of counsel to secure an expert witness in a timely fashion to the public defender's office's lack of funds. In Hernandez, we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance, noting that defense counsel adequately placed the state's evidence into question through cross-examination. Id. at 15-16, 115 N.M. 6, 846 P.2d at 321-22. Here, defense counsel also assertively cross-examined Wilson. In the present case, because defense counsel did not obtain the witness until after the close of evidence, we conclude, from the prejudice to the State, the delay to the case, and the cumulative nature of the testimony, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to reopen the case.