This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves the shooting death of a ten-year-old boy, who was struck by a bullet while sleeping in his bedroom. The incident occurred after a series of escalating events, including a confrontation between the victim's brother and the accused's younger brother. The accused, along with others, allegedly fired nine shots into the victim's apartment window, resulting in the boy's death (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- Trial Court, Ninth Judicial District: The accused was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, shooting at a dwelling causing death or great bodily harm, tampering with evidence, and intimidation of a witness (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by (1) improperly granting the State’s second motion to reconsider a change of venue, (2) finding a Batson violation in the defendant’s peremptory strike of a white male juror while rejecting Batson challenges to the State’s strikes of Hispanic jurors, and (3) failing to reverse the convictions under the cumulative error doctrine (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the trial court acted within its discretion in granting the second motion to reconsider the venue, properly ruled on the Batson challenges, and that no cumulative error occurred (paras 7-29).
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in granting the State’s second motion to reconsider a change of venue (para 1).
- Whether the trial court properly ruled on the Batson challenges regarding peremptory strikes (para 1).
- Whether the cumulative error doctrine required reversal of the defendant’s convictions (para 1).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the defendant’s convictions (para 41).
Reasons
Per Maes J. (Daniels C.J., Serna, Bosson, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
Change of Venue: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s second motion to reconsider the change of venue. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Roosevelt County was subject to exception under the relevant statutes. The court’s decision to move the trial to Roosevelt County was supported by substantial evidence, including the lack of recent media coverage and the passage of time since the incident (paras 7-19).
Batson Challenges:
- The trial court properly upheld the State’s Batson challenge to the defendant’s peremptory strike of a white male juror. The defendant’s explanation for the strike was found to be pretextual, as it was based on gender and potentially race, and the trial court’s findings were supported by the record (paras 20-36).
- The trial court correctly rejected the defendant’s Batson challenge to the State’s peremptory strikes of Hispanic jurors. The State provided race-neutral explanations for each strike, which were not found to be pretextual (paras 37-38).
Cumulative Error: The court found no errors in the trial proceedings and, therefore, rejected the defendant’s claim of cumulative error. The defendant received a fair trial (paras 39-40).