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 robbing a convenience store in Albuquerque while wearing a nylon stocking mask, a green "army" jacket, and a sock over his left hand. The store clerk, who recognized the Defendant as a regular customer, identified him as the robber based on his facial features and tattoos, even though the tattoos were not visible during the robbery. The Defendant argued that the clerk had mistaken him for his brother, who also had tattoos and frequently accompanied him to the store (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of armed robbery with a firearm enhancement and sentenced to ten years in prison, with four years suspended.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by (1) refusing to allow his brother to display his tattoos as demonstrative evidence, (2) denying a requested jury instruction on the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and (3) permitting identification procedures that were impermissibly suggestive (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the trial court's decisions were proper and that any errors were harmless, as the store clerk's identification of the Defendant was reliable and corroborated by other evidence (paras 7-9).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err in refusing to allow the Defendant's brother to display his tattoos as demonstrative evidence?
- Was the trial court's rejection of the Defendant's requested jury instruction on eyewitness testimony proper?
- Were the identification procedures used in the case impermissibly suggestive?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 13).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Minzner C.J. and Apodaca J. concurring):
Tattoo Display: The trial court erred in ruling that the brother's tattoo display was testimonial evidence and inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment. However, the error was deemed harmless because the jury had sufficient opportunity to compare the physical characteristics of the Defendant and his brother, and the clerk's identification was based on facial features rather than tattoos. The refusal to admit the tattoo display did not prejudice the Defendant's case (paras 5-9).
Jury Instruction: The trial court properly rejected the Defendant's requested jury instruction on eyewitness testimony. The uniform jury instructions on witness credibility and reasonable doubt adequately addressed the reliability of the clerk's identification, as established by New Mexico precedent (paras 10-11).
Identification Procedures: The Defendant's claims regarding improper bolstering of the clerk's identification and suggestive police procedures were dismissed. The Defendant failed to object to these issues at trial, and no evidence supported the claims. As such, the fundamental error doctrine did not apply (paras 12-13).