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 consuming alcohol, drove at speeds exceeding 100 mph on a New Mexico highway, leading to a high-speed police chase. During the pursuit, the Defendant's vehicle collided with another car attempting to turn, resulting in the deaths of three children and injuries to others. The Defendant's blood alcohol concentration was determined to be 0.13% shortly after the accident (paras 1-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Curry County: The Defendant was convicted of three counts of vehicular homicide, three counts of evading and eluding a police officer resulting in death, and possession of marijuana. The court denied motions for a change of venue, a peremptory juror challenge, and good-time credit for pretrial detention. The Defendant was sentenced with aggravated terms for the convictions (paras 2, 7, 24).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying a change of venue, refusing a peremptory juror challenge, admitting prejudicial evidence, aggravating the sentence, denying good-time credit for pretrial detention, and imposing consecutive sentences for two types of vehicular homicide for each death (paras 2, 7, 9, 12, 21, 24, 28).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court acted within its discretion on all issues and that the evidence and sentencing were appropriate under the law.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for a change of venue?
- Was the district court correct in refusing the Defendant's peremptory juror challenge?
- Was the admission of certain evidence, including testimony about the accident scene and officers' opinions, proper?
- Did the district court err in aggravating the Defendant's sentence?
- Was the Defendant entitled to good-time credit for the period preceding trial?
- Did the district court err in imposing consecutive sentences for two types of vehicular homicide for each death?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all issues except for the imposition of consecutive sentences for two types of vehicular homicide for each death. The case was remanded for resentencing on this issue (paras 2, 38).
Reasons
Per Black J. (Alarid and Pickard JJ. concurring):
Change of Venue: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that jurors had fixed opinions preventing impartiality, despite pretrial publicity (paras 7-8).
Peremptory Juror Challenge: The district court properly denied the Defendant's peremptory challenge of a Black juror, finding the Defendant's race-neutral explanation unconvincing and indicative of purposeful discrimination (paras 9-11).
Admissibility of Evidence: Testimony about the accident scene and officers' opinions was relevant to proving the elements of depraved mind murder and vehicular homicide. The court acted within its discretion in admitting this evidence, and the Defendant was not prejudiced as he was acquitted of depraved mind murder (paras 12-20).
Aggravated Sentences: The district court properly considered factors surrounding the offense, such as the Defendant's failure to brake or avoid the collision, to aggravate the sentence. These factors were not elements of the crime itself (paras 21-23).
Good-Time Credit: The Defendant was not entitled to good-time credit for pretrial detention, as such credits apply only to convicted and sentenced prisoners, not pretrial detainees (paras 24-27).
Consecutive Sentences for Vehicular Homicide: The court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for two types of vehicular homicide for each death. The statute does not permit multiple punishments for a single death, and the rule of lenity supports this interpretation. The case was remanded to vacate three of the convictions and for resentencing (paras 28-38).