Opinion ID: 2636808
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court properly admitted the grooming evidence

Text: {12} Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of ... intent ... or absence of mistake or accident. Rule 11-404(B). Accordingly, evidence of other acts is admissible under Rule 11-404(B) if relevant to a material issue other than the [d]efendant's character or propensity to commit a crime. State v. Kerby, 2007-NMSC-014, ¶ 25, 141 N.M. 413, 156 P.3d 704. We review a trial court's decision to admit evidence under Rule 11-404(B) for abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court's ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {13} In this case, the grooming evidence was admissible to prove Defendant's intent. See Kerby, 2007-NMSC-014, ¶ 26, 141 N.M. 413, 156 P.3d 704. To prove CSCM, the State must establish that the defendant's touch was unlawful, and it may do so by showing that the defendant's behavior was done to arouse or gratify sexual desire. Kerby, 2007-NMSC-014, ¶ 26, 141 N.M. 413, 156 P.3d 704 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In Kerby, the defendant created a peephole into the victim's bathroom. Id. We affirmed the trial court's admission of that other-act evidence to counter the defendant's assertion that he had touched the victim's buttocks merely as a fatherly pat. Id. The peephole evidence, we reasoned, supported the inference that the defendant had touched his victim with a sexual intent, and thus was relevant to prove the unlawfulness element of CSCM. Id. {14} In the instant case, the State elicited testimony from several witnesses that Defendant had admitted to touching Child's privates while putting the ointment on her rash. It also cross-examined Defendant with his statement to an investigating officer that he had touched Child's vagina while putting medicine on her rash but had not done so sexually. Thus, evidence offered at trial supported the inference that, when Defendant touched Child during his application of medicinal ointment to her rash, he did so without a sexual intent. The grooming evidence counters that inference because it suggests that Defendant was attempting to familiarize Child with sexuality and thereby to create an atmosphere in which she would be less resistant to his sexual advances. As evidence of Defendant's sexually fraught conduct with the Child, the grooming evidence was properly admitted to refute[ ] the evidence that Defendant touched the Child strictly for medical reasons. Sena, 2007-NMCA-115, ¶ 37, 142 N.M. 677, 168 P.3d 1101 (Fry, J., dissenting). Thus, while the Court of Appeals correctly asserted that the grooming evidence could not be offered to show Defendant's propensity to act[ ] like a pervert on occasion, id. ¶ 23, it erred in rejecting the evidence as proof of Defendant's intent, see id. ¶ 22. {15} For those reasons, we cannot characterize the trial court's admission of the grooming evidence as clearly untenable or not justified by reason, and thus hold that it was properly admitted under Rule 11-404(B).
{16} Defendant argues that, even if the grooming evidence was admissible under Rule 11-404(B), it should have been excluded under Rule 11-403 as unfairly prejudicial. Rule 11-403 states that otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Other-act evidence that proves only character or propensity is unfairly prejudicial and properly excluded under Rule 11-403. State v. Otto, 2007-NMSC-012, ¶ 16, 141 N.M. 443, 157 P.3d 8. However, as we concluded above, the grooming evidence was offered for a legitimate, non-character purpose. Thus, its admissibility under Rule 11-403 depends on the balance of its probative value against any prejudicial effect that it may have had. See State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 22, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828. Determining whether the prejudicial impact of evidence outweighs its probative value is left to the discretion of the trial court. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 48, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review such determinations for abuse of discretion and give much leeway to trial judges who must fairly weigh probative value against probable dangers. Otto, 2007-NMSC-012, ¶ 14, 141 N.M. 443, 157 P.3d 8 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {17} In the instant case, the grooming evidence was probative of the fact that Defendant acted with a sexual intent. Without hearing the grooming evidence, the jury was more likely to believe that Defendant touched Child simply for medicinal purposes and less likely to believe that he did so with a sexual intent. Given the probative value of the grooming evidence when offered to show Defendant's intent, we cannot characterize the trial court's admission of it as clearly untenable or unjustified by reason. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the grooming evidence under Rule 11-403.
{18} While holding that the grooming evidence was inadmissible, the Court of Appeals majority stated that testimony regarding a defendant's grooming behavior is best left to an expert witness. Sena, 2007-NMCA-115, ¶ 25, 142 N.M. 677, 168 P.3d 1101. While we agree with the dissent that the propriety of lay testimony on the subject of grooming was not raised at trial or on appeal, and thus should not have been addressed by the majority, id. ¶ 40 (Fry, J., dissenting), we are compelled to briefly address the issue. {19} Rule 11-404(B)'s list of exceptions to the general prohibition against character evidence is not exhaustive; it is merely illustrative. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 22, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828. Apparently in recognition of this, the majority opinion characterized the trial court's ruling as having admitted the grooming evidence under an unlisted exception to Rule 11-404(B). Sena, 2007-NMCA-115, ¶¶ 14, 19, 142 N.M. 677, 168 P.3d 1101. Namely, the majority opined that the trial court admitted the grooming evidence to prove the fact that Defendant had engaged in `[t]he process of manipulation often utilized by child molesters, intended to reduce a victim's or potential victim's resistance to sexual abuse,' also known as `[g]rooming.' Id. ¶ 15 (quoting Ctr. for Sex Offender Mgmt., Glossary of Terms Used in the Mgmt. & Trtmt. of Sexual Offenders 11 (1999), http://www. csom.org/pubs/glossary.pdf). So viewing the trial court's ruling, the majority proceeded to analyze the evidentiary requirements necessary to offer evidence of a defendant's grooming behavior to prove the fact that grooming actually occurred. See id. ¶¶ 16-27. {20} While an expert witness is needed when details of a scientific or specialized theory and its application to the facts of a particular case are being introduced to the jury, see Rule 11-701 NMRA (preventing lay witnesses from testifying based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of [the rule governing testimony by experts]), we do not agree that the grooming evidence in the instant case needed an expert witness to explain to the jury how Defendant's behavior showed his sexual intent or his lack of mistake or accident, cf. State v. Boyett, 2008-NMSC-030, ¶ 28, 144 N.M. 184, 185 P.3d 355 (explaining that nonexperts can testify about a defendant's intent so long as their testimony addresses matters within the realm of common knowledge and experience). Although the factual question of whether certain behavior constitutes grooming  as the term is scientifically or specially understood  begs an answer laced with details from the theory of grooming, the question of whether certain behavior shows a sexual intent does not. Lay persons are well-aware of what it means to act with a sexual intent, and therefore can identify behavior as exhibiting that trait without the aid of an expert witness. {21} Thus, in this case, the lay witnesses and lay persons on the jury were well-equipped to understand how Defendant's behavior proved his sexual intent, even though they may have been ill-equipped to decide whether Defendant had groomed Child, according to a scientific or specialized definition of that term. Had the grooming evidence been offered and admitted solely as proof of the fact that Defendant had groomed Child, an expert would likely have been necessary to expound upon the theory of grooming and to explain how that theory applied in this case. However, as detailed above, the grooming evidence was properly admitted to prove intent; creating a new exception to Rule 11-404(B) for grooming, as suggested by the majority opinion, was unnecessary. {22} We conclude that the grooming evidence, as used in this case, was not based in scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge and was thus within the realm of lay testimony. We reject any reading of the majority opinion that would be inconsistent with the discussion above.