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 and his co-defendant (his father) forcibly entered the victims' apartment in the early morning hours, armed with firearms. They demanded money, struck one victim with a firearm, and took cash from another victim. As they were leaving, the Defendant suggested taking a television but ultimately left without it (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, and aggravated burglary, all involving the use of a firearm. The court imposed judgment and sentence on these convictions (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in several respects, including denying a motion to excuse a juror for cause, allowing improper prosecutorial comments on his silence, admitting evidence of unindicted crimes and a high-speed chase, and admitting testimony about a co-defendant's arrest. He also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for aggravated burglary (paras 2, 5-6, 8, 22, 25, 28, 33).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the trial court acted within its discretion on all issues, including the juror challenge, evidentiary rulings, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The State also argued that the Defendant's silence upon arrest was not constitutionally protected and that the evidence of flight was admissible (paras 6, 12-13, 22-24, 28-31).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement properly granted?
- Did the trial court err in refusing to excuse a juror for cause?
- Was the State's comment on the Defendant's silence upon arrest improper?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated burglary?
- Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of unindicted crimes and a high-speed chase?
- Did the trial court err in admitting testimony about the circumstances of the co-defendant's arrest?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings on all issues (para 36).
Reasons
Per Fred T. Hensley, District Judge (Thomas A. Donnelly and Rudy S. Apodaca JJ. concurring):
Motion to Amend Docketing Statement: The Court allowed the Defendant's motion to amend his docketing statement, finding that his trial counsel's oversight and workload justified the amendment. The issues raised were deemed viable and substantive (paras 5-7).
Juror Challenge: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse juror Eloise K. for cause. Although she initially expressed bias due to being a robbery victim, she later affirmed her ability to be impartial. The Court distinguished this case from precedents where external pressures influenced jurors' impartiality (paras 8-21).
Prosecutorial Comment on Silence: The Court held that the Defendant's silence upon arrest, when asked for identification, was not constitutionally protected as it was not testimonial. The trial court properly admitted the State's comment on this silence (paras 22-24).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated burglary. Testimony indicated that the Defendant and his father demanded money, and the Defendant's actions and statements demonstrated intent to commit larceny (paras 25-27).
Evidence of Unindicted Crimes and Flight: The Court ruled that the arresting officer's testimony about the high-speed chase and mistaken belief regarding a stolen motorcycle was not prejudicial. Evidence of the Defendant's flight was admissible as it demonstrated a guilty conscience and knowledge of pursuit (paras 28-32).
Testimony About Co-defendant's Arrest: The Court upheld the trial court's decision to admit foundational questions about the co-defendant's arrest. The objection raised by the Defendant was limited to the witness's competence, and the Court found no error in the trial court's ruling (paras 33-34).
Additional Issues: The Court considered and rejected two additional issues raised by the Defendant, finding them unpersuasive (para 35).