Supreme Court overturns 2019 child sex crime conviction

The state Supreme Court on Monday tossed the 2019 conviction of a Union County man on child sex crimes and ordered a lower court to release him from prison.

The unanimous five-member court found that in Rudolph Amador’s trial, the prosecutor made comments in his closing arguments that were “extremely prejudicial and improper” and prejudiced the jury against Amador.

Amador, 52, likely will be released within two weeks from the New Mexico Corrections Department after nearly five years in custody, said Allison Jaramillo, a Law Offices of the Public Defender attorney who argued the appeal on Amador’s behalf.

Jaramillo called it “very rare” for the high court to overturn a conviction based on misconduct by a prosecutor. “The misconduct has to be severe and typically pervasive” and involve “misconduct throughout a trial,” she said in a phone interview Monday.

Amador had faced up to 15 years in prison.

Amador was charged in 2017 for allegedly sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl while spending the night at a friend’s house in Clayton.

An 8th Judicial District Jury convicted Amador in 2019 of two counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and one count of abuse of a child under 13.

A judge ordered a retrial in the case after learning that Amador had not previously been convicted of felony child abuse as jurors were told during the trial. He was again convicted on the same charges.

Amador appealed to the state Court of Appeals, which upheld the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling.

Justice Michael Vigil, writing on behalf of the unanimous court, said that the retrial violated Amador’s double jeopardy protections.

Under state law, “the prosecutor’s conduct was sufficiently egregious to trigger the bar of double jeopardy,” Vigil wrote in his 24-page opinion.

“If those responsible for enforcing the law do not understand basic evidentiary rules while wielding the considerable power of the State, it undermines the public’s confidence in the justice system,” Vigil wrote.

Amador pleaded guilty in 2010 to a charge of child abuse and was released on conditional discharge. Amador testified in 2019 that the earlier charge was based on a fight he had with his 17-year-old stepson.

A 2nd Judicial District Court judge dismissed the charge in 2013 after Amador completed the required conditions.

Under state law, “a conditional discharge is not a conviction,” Vigil wrote.

The prosecutor in the 2019 case misrepresented the conditional discharge as a prior felony, then used it in closing arguments to impeach Amador’s credibility, Vigil wrote.

“The prosecutor referred to the defendant as a pedophile five times in his closing argument and rebuttal” and improperly referred to the Catholic Church clergy abuse scandal, Vigil wrote.

“These improper arguments compounded to prejudice the jury against the defendant,” he wrote.