New Hampshire v. Moncada
Annotate this CaseDefendant Michael Moncada appealed his conviction on three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, ten counts of felonious sexual assault and one count of bail jumping stemming from inappropriate contact he had with his girlfriend’s thirteen year-old daughter. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred by finding him competent to stand trial, and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him. The trial court heard testimony from two experts who both agreed that Defendant had “certain cognitive defects.” But both did not agree whether Defendant was competent to stand trial. The State offered testimony of an ex-girlfriend of Defendant, who testified that she had seen Defendant reading the newspaper, and that he wrote her numerous letters when he served time in prison. Given all the evidence on the competency issue, the Supreme court found it “cannot conclude that no reasonable trier of fact could have found as the trial court did.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the competency issue, and also found that evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.