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, a former sheriff, was charged with perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury after allegedly providing false testimony during a hearing to determine whether he violated a restraining order prohibiting contact with his ex-wife. The charges stemmed from the Defendant's and his undersheriff's testimony, which was later contradicted by evidence showing the undersheriff was not present during the events in question (paras 1, 3-9).
Procedural History
- District Court of McKinley County: The Defendant was convicted on three counts of perjury and one count of conspiracy to commit perjury. The court merged a solicitation charge with the conspiracy count and acquitted the Defendant on other charges (para 13).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by removing the element of materiality from the jury's consideration, failing to instruct the grand jury on materiality, denying a speedy trial, admitting hearsay evidence, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the perjury convictions (paras 1, 14, 30, 44, 46).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the trial court properly followed existing jury instructions at the time, the Defendant was not prejudiced by the grand jury process, the delay was justified, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions (paras 18, 30, 34, 46).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err by failing to instruct the jury on the element of materiality in the perjury charges?
- Was the Defendant denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial?
- Did the prosecutor's use of grand jury information violate grand jury secrecy rules?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the perjury convictions?
- Was the indictment for conspiracy to commit perjury fatally deficient?
- Did the trial court err in admitting the statement of the deceased witness as a statement against penal interest?
Disposition
- The convictions for perjury were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on counts one and three.
- Count two of the indictment was vacated as duplicative.
- The conviction for conspiracy to commit perjury was affirmed.
- The trial court's admission of the deceased witness's statement was found to be erroneous (paras 2, 59-60).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Flores and Armijo JJ. concurring):
Materiality Instruction: The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on materiality, an essential element of perjury, as required by United States v. Gaudin. This omission constituted reversible error, and the convictions on counts one and three were remanded for a new trial (paras 14-29).
Speedy Trial: The 11.5-month delay was not deemed a violation of the Defendant's right to a speedy trial. The delay was attributed to valid reasons, including judicial recusals, plea negotiations, and pretrial motions, with no significant prejudice to the Defendant's defense (paras 31-43).
Grand Jury Secrecy: The Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the prosecutor's alleged misuse of grand jury information. The indictment was not dismissed (paras 44-45).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The evidence was sufficient to support the perjury conviction under count three, as the State presented testimony and evidence contradicting the Defendant's statements (paras 46-47).
Conspiracy Indictment: The indictment for conspiracy to commit perjury was sufficiently specific, and the Defendant waived any claim of deficiency by failing to request a statement of facts (paras 48-53).
Hearsay Evidence: The trial court erred in admitting the deceased witness's statement under Rule 11-804(B)(3). The statement included non-self-inculpatory remarks and should have been excluded under Williamson v. United States (paras 54-58).