State v. Moore , 94 N.M. 503 ( 1980 )

SOSA Chief Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

The evidence which was admitted at trial, over objection, concerned the effects the rape has had on the victim’s life. It was clearly not probative of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Defendant’s objection was based on N.M.R.Evid. 403, N.M.S. A.1978:

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

The prejudice inherent in the evidence substantially outweighed any probative value, and the evidence should not have been admitted.

Though evidence of guilt was great in this case, I believe that prosecutors should nonetheless conform to legal standards in obtaining convictions. There is no need, especially in a case with overwhelming evidence of guilt, to resort to tactics which unfairly prejudice a jury. Convictions should not be obtained at any cost, but should be obtained in accordance with the rules of evidence.

I would give the defendant a new trial, excluding irrelevant and prejudicial evidence.