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 Defendant, a hitchhiker, attempted to steal a truck from the victim at a highway exit in New Mexico. When the victim resisted and screamed, the Defendant shot her three times, killing her instantly. He then drove the truck to another state, disposed of the victim's body, and attempted to clean the vehicle. Evidence, including the victim's possessions and DNA, linked the Defendant to the crime (paras 2-8).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 22.5 years.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by (1) denying a motion to change venue due to pretrial publicity, (2) admitting his statement to law enforcement, (3) allowing evidence disclosed only at trial, and (4) imposing sentences for both murder and armed robbery, claiming a double jeopardy violation (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the trial court acted within its discretion, the Defendant's statement was admissible, the late-disclosed evidence did not prejudice the Defendant, and the convictions for murder and armed robbery were based on distinct conduct (paras 10-37).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the Defendant's motion to change venue due to pretrial publicity?
- Was the Defendant's statement to law enforcement admissible under Miranda and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations?
- Did the trial court err in admitting evidence disclosed only at trial?
- Did sentencing for both first-degree murder and armed robbery violate the prohibition against double jeopardy?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions and sentence (para 37).
Reasons
Per Serna CJ. (Baca, Franchini, Minzner, and Maes JJ. concurring):
Change of Venue: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to change venue. Substantial evidence supported the finding that an impartial jury could be empaneled despite pretrial publicity. Voir dire revealed no actual prejudice among jurors (paras 10-18).
Admissibility of Statement: The Defendant's waiver of Miranda rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. His ambiguous question during booking, "Do I need an attorney?" did not constitute an unequivocal request for counsel. The Vienna Convention argument was unpreserved and did not amount to fundamental error (paras 19-31).
Late-Disclosed Evidence: The trial court did not err in admitting the Defendant's shoes, as the Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or that the trial court's actions to cure the late disclosure were inadequate (paras 32-33).
Double Jeopardy: The convictions for first-degree murder and armed robbery did not violate double jeopardy. The Defendant's conduct was not unitary, as the murder was committed to silence the victim, distinct from the intent to steal the truck (paras 34-36).