The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that a district judge improperly barred a defense witness from testifying, reversing two convictions while allowing prosecutors to retry the case.

Damien Willis, Organ Mountain News

LAS CRUCES - The New Mexico Court of Appeals has overturned two child sexual abuse convictions against a Doña Ana County man, ruling that a district judge improperly prevented a defense witness from testifying during a 2024 trial.

In a memorandum opinion filed Tuesday, Oct. 13, a three-judge panel reversed the convictions of Conception Morales III on two fourth-degree counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor involving a family member who was 13 at the time of the alleged assault.

The appellate court found that District Judge Conrad F. Perea abused his discretion by excluding a defense witness without conducting a legally required analysis of whether such a severe sanction was justified.

The ruling sends the case back to district court for further proceedings and permits prosecutors to retry Morales.

The appeals court did not determine that Morales was innocent or that the evidence against him was insufficient. In fact, the panel specifically concluded that the trial evidence was sufficient to support both convictions, allowing another trial without violating constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

Witness excluded from both trials

The allegations stemmed from an incident reported to have occurred between September and October 2022, when the victim was 13.

According to the appellate opinion, the girl initially disclosed the alleged assault to another person shortly after it occurred. She reported the allegations to another family member approximately six months later, and a police report was subsequently filed.

Morales was charged with two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor.

His first trial, in June 2024, ended in a mistrial. During that proceeding, prosecutors objected when the defense sought to call a witness who had not been included on a final defense witness list.

The defense argued that it had previously reserved the right to call witnesses identified by prosecutors and that the proposed witness appeared on the state's own witness list.

The district court excluded the witness, finding that the defense had not complied with local witness-disclosure requirements.

Before Morales' second trial in July 2024, his attorneys filed witness lists that specifically included the previously excluded witness.

Prosecutors again sought to prevent the witness from testifying, arguing that the defense had failed to properly identify the witness within the deadline following Morales' September 2023 arraignment.

Perea granted the prosecution's request.

Morales was subsequently convicted of both counts following the July 2024 retrial.

Appeals court finds disclosure was sufficient

On appeal, Morales argued that excluding the witness violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense.

The Court of Appeals agreed.

Writing for the panel, Judge Shammara H. Henderson found that Morales' attorneys had filed an initial witness disclosure within the applicable deadline, expressly reserving the right to call witnesses identified by prosecutors.

The prosecution had included the disputed witness on its own initial list.

The appellate court relied in part on a 2025 New Mexico Supreme Court decision establishing that a defendant can adequately disclose an intention to call prosecution witnesses through a general reservation of that right.

Under that precedent, the defense was not required to separately identify each witness already listed by the state.

The panel concluded that Perea erred in finding that the defense had violated the disclosure requirements.

But the court identified another problem: Even if a discovery violation had occurred, the judge was required to consider whether excluding the witness was an appropriate sanction.

New Mexico law requires judges to weigh several factors before barring defense testimony, including whether less severe sanctions would be effective, whether prosecutors would be prejudiced and whether any discovery violation was intentional.

The appellate judges found no indication that Perea conducted that analysis.

The opinion noted that excluding a defense witness is an extraordinary sanction because it can interfere with a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense.

The court concluded that Perea moved directly to exclusion without examining less severe alternatives or creating an adequate record explaining his decision.

Because the required analysis was missing, the appellate panel determined that the exclusion was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal.

Retrial remains possible

Although the appellate court overturned the convictions, it separately reviewed whether sufficient evidence had been presented at trial to support the jury's verdicts.

That review was necessary to determine whether another prosecution would violate Morales' constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

The panel examined testimony from the victim and another witness concerning the allegations.

The judges concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Morales guilty of both counts.

The ruling therefore allows prosecutors to pursue another trial.

The appellate court did not address Morales' remaining claims, including arguments concerning restrictions on other evidence and allegations that a detective improperly vouched for the victim's credibility.

Because the witness-exclusion issue already required reversal, the panel concluded that addressing the additional claims would provide no further relief.

Henderson authored the opinion, joined by Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Megan P. Duffy.

The decision reverses Morales' convictions and returns the case to the Doña Ana County district court for proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling.

The memorandum opinion was filed Oct. 13.

Damien Willis is founder and editor of Organ Mountain News. If you have a personal story to share or a lead we should follow up on, reach out at OrganMountainNews@gmail.com or connect with him on X at @damienwillis.