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 defendants were charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder after driving to the victims' home following a fight involving their uncle. One victim was killed, and the other was seriously injured. The defendants denied involvement, claiming they were elsewhere at the time of the shootings (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Cibola County: The defendants were convicted of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement, and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. They were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Defendants): Argued that the trial court erred by failing to replace a juror whose sister, a victims' advocate, sat with the victims' family during the trial, denying a motion for a mistrial or new trial, and refusing a continuance to obtain expert testimony on a victim's blood alcohol level. They also claimed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and ineffective assistance of counsel (paras 1, 8, 17, 20).
- Respondent (State): Contended that the defendants waived their objection to the juror by failing to act during voir dire, that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the continuance, and that the prosecutor's remarks were permissible. The State also argued that the defendants failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel or prejudice (paras 9-11, 16-20).
Legal Issues
- Was the defendants' right to a fair and impartial jury violated due to the juror's relationship with a victims' advocate?
- Did the trial court err in denying the defendants' motion for a continuance to obtain expert testimony?
- Did the prosecutor's remarks during closing arguments improperly shift the burden of proof?
- Did the defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the convictions and sentences (para 23).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Baca C.J. and Frost J. concurring):
Juror Bias: The defendants waived their objection to the juror by failing to question her during voir dire or raise concerns earlier. The court found no implied bias, as the juror's connection to the victims' advocate was indirect and insufficient to presume bias. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to replace the juror or grant a mistrial (paras 9-16).
Motion for Continuance: The trial court's denial of the continuance was upheld. The defendants were able to use the victim's blood alcohol level to challenge his credibility during closing arguments, and no prejudice resulted from the denial (para 17).
Prosecutor's Remarks: The prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were permissible, as they addressed the lack of corroborating evidence for the defendants' claims and did not improperly shift the burden of proof. The trial court acted within its discretion in allowing the remarks (paras 18-19).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The defendants failed to demonstrate that their counsel's performance was deficient or that it caused prejudice. The decision not to challenge the juror or obtain an expert witness was deemed a matter of trial strategy, and no evidence of actual prejudice was presented (paras 20-22).