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 involved in a vehicular accident resulting in two fatalities. The Defendant was subsequently charged and convicted of two counts of vehicular homicide under New Mexico law (paras 1, 8).
Procedural History
- District Court of McKinley County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of vehicular homicide.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court's comments during voir dire had a chilling effect on juror participation, the admission of the investigating sergeant's testimony was plain error, the State's witness was improperly admitted as an expert in forensic toxicology, and the sentence was incorrect in light of legislative amendments (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court's actions during voir dire were within its discretion, the sergeant's testimony was admissible as lay opinion, the expert witness was properly qualified, and the sentence was appropriate under the applicable statute (paras 4, 6, 12, 18).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court's comments during voir dire amount to fundamental error?
- Was the admission of the investigating sergeant's testimony as lay opinion testimony plain error?
- Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting the State’s witness as an expert in forensic toxicology?
- Was the Defendant sentenced incorrectly in light of the Legislature’s 2022 amendment to the general sentencing statute?
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed, and the Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed (para 21).
Reasons
Per Ives J. (Bogardus and Yohalem JJ. concurring):
- The court found no fundamental error in the district court's comments during voir dire, as the defense counsel had ample opportunity to question jurors about biases, and the court had broad discretion in overseeing voir dire (paras 2-4).
- The admission of Sergeant Lee's testimony did not constitute plain error because it was cumulative of other evidence and not relied upon by the State in closing arguments (paras 5-10).
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying Marina Salazar as an expert, as she had sufficient qualifications and experience, and the court's reliance on her state certification was not improper (paras 12-17).
- The Defendant's sentence was upheld as the applicable statute at the time of the offense provided for a fifteen-year sentence for second-degree felonies resulting in death, and the 2022 amendment did not apply retroactively (paras 18-20).