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 armed robbery, aggravated burglary, and assault with intent to commit a violent felony following the robbery of a service station and convenience store in Farmington, New Mexico. The robbery involved a group of individuals, and the Defendant was identified as the perpetrator by a hearsay statement from his girlfriend, which became a key issue in the case (paras 1, 7).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County: The Defendant was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated burglary, and assault with intent to commit a violent felony.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the indictment should be quashed due to lack of notice that he was a target of the grand jury, (2) his convictions for both armed robbery and assault with intent to commit a violent felony violated double jeopardy, and (3) the admission of a hearsay statement identifying him as the perpetrator was improper (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the conviction for assault with intent to commit a violent felony should be vacated due to double jeopardy but argued that the hearsay statement was admissible under the exception for statements against penal interest (paras 3-4).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in refusing to quash the indictment?
- Did the Defendant’s convictions for both armed robbery and assault with intent to commit a violent felony violate double jeopardy?
- Was the hearsay statement identifying the Defendant as the perpetrator properly admitted under the exception for statements against penal interest?
Disposition
- The conviction for assault with intent to commit a violent felony was vacated due to double jeopardy (para 3).
- The convictions for armed robbery and aggravated burglary were affirmed (para 15).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Black and Flores JJ. concurring):
Indictment: The court found no error in the district court’s refusal to quash the indictment. The Defendant failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the alleged lack of notice that he was a target of the grand jury (para 2).
Double Jeopardy: The State conceded that the conviction for assault with intent to commit a violent felony violated double jeopardy principles. The court remanded the case to vacate this conviction (para 3).
Hearsay Statement: The court upheld the admission of the hearsay statement under the exception for statements against penal interest. The declarant, the Defendant’s girlfriend, was deemed unavailable as a witness after reasonable efforts to locate her failed (para 6). The statement was found to be sufficiently trustworthy as it implicated the declarant in criminal activity and was made to a close friend in a non-coercive context (paras 7-11).
Confrontation Clause: The court rejected the Defendant’s argument that the admission of the hearsay statement violated his constitutional right to confront his accusers, finding the statement sufficiently reliable to satisfy the Confrontation Clause (para 14).
The court affirmed the convictions for armed robbery and aggravated burglary and remanded the case to vacate the conviction for assault with intent to commit a violent felony (para 15).