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, after a violent altercation with his girlfriend, drove his truck in a threatening manner, hitting her and later targeting others who stopped to assist her on a highway. The Defendant ultimately struck and killed a bystander who had stopped to help. Witnesses testified that the Defendant acted intentionally and fled the scene after the fatal collision (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder under three theories (depraved mind murder, deliberate murder, and felony murder) and other charges, including attempted murder and aggravated assault. The court entered a directed verdict of not guilty for the kidnapping charge (paras 5, 18).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence of a prior robbery conviction, violating Rule 11-404(B), and that the addition of predicate felonies to the felony murder charge constituted an impermissible variance to the indictment (paras 1, 18-19).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the prior robbery conviction was admissible to show the Defendant’s state of mind and that the addition of predicate felonies did not prejudice the Defendant’s substantial rights (paras 6-7, 20-21).
Legal Issues
- Was the admission of the Defendant’s prior robbery conviction a violation of Rule 11-404(B)?
- Did the addition of predicate felonies to the felony murder charge constitute an impermissible variance to the indictment?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant’s conviction (para 27).
Reasons
Per Serna J. (Daniels C.J., Maes, Bosson, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
Admission of Prior Robbery Conviction:
The district court erred in admitting the Defendant’s prior robbery conviction as it constituted inadmissible propensity evidence under Rule 11-404(B). The evidence was used to suggest that the Defendant acted in conformity with his past behavior, which is prohibited. However, the error was deemed harmless because there was substantial evidence supporting the conviction without reference to the inadmissible evidence, including detailed eyewitness testimony (paras 6-17).
Variance in Predicate Felonies:
The addition of aggravated assault charges as predicate felonies for the felony murder charge did not amount to an impermissible variance. The Defendant’s substantial rights were not prejudiced because the underlying conduct for the added predicate felonies was already part of the charges, and the Defendant had sufficient notice to prepare his defense. The court emphasized that the variance did not introduce new charges but merely conformed to the evidence presented (paras 18-26).
Conclusion:
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidentiary error was harmless and the variance permissible (para 27).