This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions
on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this
electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other
deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and
does not include the filing date.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARTIN DURAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY,
Brett Loveless, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General,
Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
L. Helen Bennett, P.C., Linda Helen
Bennett, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge. WE CONCUR: M.
MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge
{1} Defendant Martin
Duran appeals his convictions of possession of a stolen vehicle and evading a
peace officer, initially asserting four issues on appeal. [DS 9-10] This Court
issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm the judgment below and Defendant has
filed a memorandum in opposition to that disposition conceding, for purposes of
appeal, that this Court’s analysis is correct with regard to three of those
issues. [MIO 1] The remaining issue asserts evidentiary error with regard to
the admission of a photograph. [MIO 1-2] Having duly considered Defendant’s
argument with regard to the admission of that photograph, we remain unpersuaded
and affirm.
{2} The photograph at
issue depicted Defendant wearing handcuffs shortly after his arrest. [MIO 1]
Defendant objected at trial that the prejudicial effect of such a photograph
substantially outweighed its probative value. [MIO 2]
See Rule
11-403
NMRA. The district court, however, ruled that the photograph was relevant and
admissible, and received it in evidence. [MIO 2] Presumably, the photograph was
relevant to establishing Defendant’s identity as the person who had led police
on a chase in a stolen SUV. [Id.; DS 7 (describing “a light skinned Hispanic
male” wearing “dark clothing and a blue hat”)]
{3} In his memorandum
in opposition to summary affirmance, Defendant relies upon out-of-state
authority for the proposition that forcing a defendant to appear before the
jury in shackles or prison clothing can amount to a due process violation. [MIO
2-4] Defendant argues from that authority that the photograph of him wearing
handcuffs served to undermine the presumption of innocence to which all
criminal defendants are entitled. [MIO 2-3] Defendant’s out-of-state cases,
however, are inapplicable to the issue at hand, in that those cases deal with
the qualified right to be free of visible restraints during trial. [Id.] As
such, those cases do not support the proposition that a single photograph of
Defendant in handcuffs at the time of his arrest could so undermine the presumption
of innocence as to raise serious concerns regarding due process.
{4} Given the fact that
Defendant’s potential identity as the person who committed the underlying
crimes in this case was a contested factual issue placed before the jury, a
photograph depicting Defendant’s appearance shortly after the relevant events
could have strong probative value. Under these circumstances, we cannot say
that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the admission of such
a photograph.
{5} Thus, for the
foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons provided in our calendar notice, we
affirm the judgment of the district court.
LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge