May 22, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Derek Garcia, No. A-1-CA-35179

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-35179
5 DEREK GARCIA,
6 	Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ROOSEVELT COUNTY
8 Drew D. Tatum, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 	Santa Fe, NM
11 	John J. Woykovsky, Assistant Attorney General
1~ Albuquerque, NM
13 	for Appellee
14 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
15 	B. Douglas Wood III, Assistant Appellate Defender
16 	Santa Fe, NM
17 for Appellant
18 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
19 ATTREP, Judge.
20 	{l} 	Defendant Derek Garcia appeals from the district court's determination, after
21 	conducting an in camera review on remand, that Defendant was not entitled to
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/22/2019 8:38 AM

1 certain confidential records sought in discovery. After conducting our own thorough
2 in camera review of the records, we affirm the district court.
3 	{2} 	This is the second ~ime this case comes before us on appeal, see_ State v.
4 	Garcia (Garcia /), 2013-NMCA-064, 302 P.3d 11_1, and we include only such
5 factual and procedural background as is necessary to decide the issue before us
6 today. Defendant was charged with two counts of second-degree criminal sexual
7 contact of a minor (CSCM), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-13(B) (2003).
8 Prior to trial, Defendant sought records pertaining to Victim from the Children,
9 Youth and Families Department (CYFD). CYFD declined to produce the requested
10 documents, invoking confidentiality, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-33(A)
11 	(2009, amended 2016). See id. ("All records or information concerning a party to a
12 neglect or abus.e proceeding ... shall be confidential and closed to the public."); see
13 	also § 32A-4-33(B)(19) (permitting disclosure of confidential records pursuant to
14 court order to any person having a "legitimate interest").
15 	{3} 	Defendant moved for the production of the CYFD records. 	In support,
_ 	16 Defendant "had evidence suggesting that Victim had been interviewed a number of
17 times by CYFD or Oasis[, a forensic interviewing service,] 	and/or had made
18 	unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse in the past." Garcia I, 2013-NMCA-064,
19 1 29. Defendant argued that "the defense needed to know the complete picture about
20 the earlier allegations and interviews and that it was relevant whether Victim learned
2

1 during those multiple interviews how to answer in such a way that her allegations
2 would be given credence." Id.~ 26 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).
3 Without conducting an in camera review, "[t]he district court found that Defendant
4 had a legitimate interest only as to incidents related to Defendant and the charges
5 alleged in the criminal information[,]" ordered production of those records, and
6 "declined to order disclosure of any records not related to the present charges." Id.
7 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). After beiijg convicted of both
8 counts of CSCM, Defendant appealed.
9 {4} 	In his first appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that "the district
10 court erred by declining to order disclosure of CYFD records related to allegations
11 	[of abuse] by Victim before those leading to this case." Id. 	~ 24. This Court
12 determined that Defendant had made an adequate showing to trigger in camera
13 	review of the CYFD records. See id. ~~ is, 29 (requiring Defendant to provide a
14 reasonable basis on which to believe that it is likely the records contain material
15 	information). In particular, we noted that "Victim'_s credibility as to both possible
16 false accusations and learned ability to respond to interview questions was material
17 to Defendant's defense." Id.~ 29. We thus remanded the case to the district court to
18 conduct an in camera review of the records sought by Defendant, "to determine (1)
19 	if any portion· of them is material to the charges or defense and (2) whether exclusion
3

1 of the records was prejudicial to Defendant." Id. 132. We further noted that, "[i]f
2 the answer to both questions is yes, Defendant must be given a new trial." Id.
3 	{5} 	On remand, the district court obtained the CYFD records pertaining to Victim
4 that were withheld from Defendant (compiled as Court's Exhibit 1), as well as a
5 subset· of CYFD records previously obtained by defense counsel ( compiled as
6 Court's Exhibit 2). Defendant argued he was entitled to review all the CYFD records.
7 The district court disagreed, interpreting the mandate to require only an in camera
8 review of the documents, not disclosure. After reviewing the records in camera, the
9 district court determined that "no portion of [the CYFD records] w[as] material to
10 the charges or defense nor was the exclusion [of the records] prejudicial to ...
11 	Defendant." Consequently, the district court held that Defendant was not entitled to
12 a new trial. This appeal followed.
13 	{6} 	Defendant now argues that the district court erred by (1) refusing to allow him
14 to review the records on remand, and (2) determining that the records were not
15 	material and their exclusion was not prejudicial. First, to the extent that Defendant
16 contends the sealed records should have been provided to him on remand, this issue
17 was previously decided against him in Garcia I. See 2013-NCMA-064, ,-r,-r 27-29
18 ( concluding that, upon an adequate showing by Defendant, the proper course was
19 for the district court to conduct an in camera review of the confidential records). We
20 decline to revisit this decision. See State v. Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, ,-r 10, 122 N.M.
4

1 655, 930 P.2d 792 (stating that generally, "[u]nder the law-of-the-case doctrine, if
2 an appellate court has considered and passed upon a question of law and remanded
3 the 	case 	for 	further 	proceedings, the 	legal 	question 	so resolved will not be
4 detennined in a different manner on· a subsequent appeal" (alteration, internal
5 quotation marks, and citation omitted)).
6 {7} 	Defendant next argues that the district court erred in its review of the GYFD
7 records and its denial of Defendant's request for the same. "A trial judge's denial of
8 a defendant's disqovery requests will be reviewed according to an abuse of discretion
9 standard." Garcia I, 2013-NMCA-064, 127 (internal quotation marks and citation
10 omitted); see also State v. Ramos, 1993-NMCA-072, 119, 115 N.M. 718, 858 P.2d
11 	94 (stating that the "[district] court [is] in the best position to assess the probative
12 value of the evidence as it relates to the particular case before it and to weigh that
13 	value against the interest in confidentiality of the records"). "In order for an abuse
14 	of discretion to be reversible, the defendant must demonstrate prejudice." Garcia I,
15 	2013-NMCA-064, 127; see also id. 131 (noting that retrial is warranted only if the
16 records contain "information that probably would have changed the outcome of the
·17 trial" (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).
18 	{8} 	We have conducted a comprehensive review of the sealed CYFD records
19 (Court's Exhibits 1 and 2) and th.e trial. Of note, the CYFD records withheld from
20 Defendant contain nothing suggesting that Victim had learned the ability to more
5

1 credibly respond to interview questions, as Defendant had surmised. See· id. 'if'if 28,
2 29. And based on our own review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
3 its discretion in determining that "no portion of [the CYFD records] w[ as] material
4 to the charges or defense nor was the exclusion [of the records] prejudicial to []
5 Defendant." See Ramos, 	1993-NMCA-072, 'if 13 	(affirming the district court's
6 determination that the defendant was not entitled to confidential files in discovery
7 after conducting its own comprehensive review of the confidential materials). As a
8 result, the district court did not err in denying Defendant's request for disclosure of
9 the CYFD records and in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial.
10 	{9} 	For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.
11 	{to} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 	~~13 	JEN 	L~TTREP, Judge
14
15 	WE CONCUR:
16 ~~~~..lo,l,......u.oi:::~--L.lo~=..:..~::::t.-
17 L
18,w~ee19 ~P.DUFFY,Jlle
6