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 multiple offenses, including attempted armed robbery, aggravated battery and assault with a deadly weapon, felon in possession of a firearm, and tampering with evidence. The case arose from a holdup at an Arby’s restaurant, where circumstantial evidence, including the Defendant’s distinctive hairstyle, linked him to the crime. The Defendant challenged procedural and evidentiary aspects of the trial, including the timing of the trial commencement, juror bias, and the admission of mugshots (paras 1, 14-16).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County: The Defendant was convicted of the charges listed above.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial did not commence within the six-month period required by Rule 5-604(B), that certain jurors should have been excused for cause due to bias, that the admission of mugshots was prejudicial, and that firearm enhancements violated double jeopardy (paras 2, 8, 14, 24).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the trial commenced when jury selection began, that the jurors in question were impartial, that the mugshots were critical circumstantial evidence, and that double jeopardy principles did not apply to the firearm enhancements (paras 3, 5, 16, 24).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial commence within the six-month period prescribed by Rule 5-604(B)?
- Were the trial court’s refusals to excuse certain jurors for cause an abuse of discretion?
- Was the admission of mugshots prejudicial to the Defendant?
- Did the firearm enhancements violate double jeopardy principles?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions and rejected all of his arguments (para 26).
Reasons
Per A. Joseph Alarid J. (Rudy S. Apodaca and Richard C. Bosson JJ. concurring):
Six-Month Rule: The Court held that the trial commenced when jury selection began on September 2, 1998, within the six-month period. The bifurcation of jury selection and the remainder of the trial was not inconsistent with Rule 5-604(B). The Court noted that the rule does not require all stages of the trial to be contiguous and rejected the Defendant’s argument that jeopardy must attach for the trial to be considered commenced (paras 4-7).
Juror Bias: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to excuse Jurors 9, 13, and 22 for cause. The statements made by these jurors reflected natural layperson expectations rather than impermissible bias. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that these jurors were unwilling or unable to decide the case based on the evidence and instructions (paras 9-13).
Admission of Mugshots: The Court ruled that the mugshots were critical circumstantial evidence linking the Defendant to the crime. The probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, especially since the jury was already aware of the Defendant’s prior felony conviction due to the felon-in-possession charge. The Court distinguished this case from precedent where mugshots were deemed prejudicial (paras 14-20).
Double Jeopardy: The Court rejected the Defendant’s double jeopardy argument regarding firearm enhancements, citing prior decisions that upheld such enhancements. The Court found no basis to extend the reasoning in State v. Contreras to this case (paras 24-25).