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 was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a felon. The crimes involved the beating, robbery, and shooting of two victims in their residence in Carlsbad, New Mexico, in late 2000. The murder weapon and stolen items were never recovered (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- State v. Johnson, 2004-NMSC-029, 136 N.M. 348, 98 P.3d 998: The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the Defendant’s convictions (except for evidence tampering) due to the improper admission of a statement under Crawford v. Washington and remanded for retrial (para 3).
- Second trial: Ended in a mistrial (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the admission of recorded jail phone calls violated his rights under the New Mexico Abuse of Privacy Act and the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions. He also raised issues regarding courtroom security measures, jury selection, voir dire, exclusion of his father from the courtroom, admission of certain testimony, and sufficiency of the evidence (paras 7, 23, 30, 33, 37, 42, 56).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the recorded phone calls were lawfully admitted, the courtroom security measures were justified, the jury selection process was fair, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions (paras 7, 23, 30, 33, 37, 42, 56).
Legal Issues
- Did the admission of recorded jail phone calls violate the Defendant’s rights under the New Mexico Abuse of Privacy Act and the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions?
- Was the use of leg shackles during trial a violation of the Defendant’s due process rights?
- Did the district court err in denying challenges for cause during jury selection?
- Was the prosecutor’s use of hypotheticals during voir dire prejudicial?
- Did the exclusion of the Defendant’s father from the courtroom violate his rights?
- Was the admission of certain testimony improper or prejudicial?
- Did the district court err in denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions?
- Was the aiding and abetting jury instruction erroneous?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions and sentences (para 63).
Reasons
Per Serna J. (Chávez CJ., Maes, Bosson, and Daniels JJ. concurring):
Admission of Recorded Jail Phone Calls: The Court held that the Defendant impliedly consented to the recording of his jail phone calls by placing them with knowledge of the recording policy. The recordings did not violate the New Mexico Abuse of Privacy Act or the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions. The calls were properly admitted as non-hearsay statements of a party opponent and co-conspirator statements (paras 9-21).
Use of Leg Shackles: The Court found no fundamental error in the use of leg shackles, as there was no indication the jury saw them, and the Defendant’s presumption of innocence was not violated. The district court’s decision was based on safety concerns (paras 23-29).
Jury Selection: The Court upheld the district court’s denial of challenges for cause against two jurors, as both indicated they could be fair and impartial. The Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from using peremptory strikes to remove them (paras 30-32).
Voir Dire: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the prosecutor’s use of hypotheticals during voir dire, as they did not prejudice the jury or commit them to a guilty verdict (paras 33-36).
Exclusion of Defendant’s Father: The Court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the witness sequestration rule, which excluded the Defendant’s father from the courtroom. There was no evidence of racial discrimination (paras 37-39).
Admission of Testimony: The Court held that the testimony regarding a fight at a liquor store, the witness’s memory of the crimes, and the delay in reporting the crimes was relevant and properly admitted. The Defendant’s objections were either not preserved or lacked merit (paras 42-46).
Motion for Mistrial: The Court found no abuse of discretion in denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on a witness’s refusal to testify and the admission of prior testimony. The witness was deemed unavailable, and the prior testimony was properly admitted under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule (paras 47-51).
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court concluded that substantial evidence, including witness testimony and recorded phone calls, supported the Defendant’s convictions for armed robbery and other charges (paras 56-59).
Aiding and Abetting Jury Instruction: The Court found no error in the use of the uniform jury instruction on aiding and abetting, as it was approved at the time of trial (para 60).