we must avoid concentrating on the suppressed evidence in isolation. This Court has recognized four primary dangers of hearsay which can potentially make a hearsay statement unreliable. There, after the witness stated that she could not recall exactly what happened, the prosecutor, over instruction from the court, lead the witness with the only evidence adduced at trial which would support the charge of criminal sexual penetration in the first-degree. As a result of this argument, shots were fired from the upstairs balcony at a downward angle, killing Mendez and wounding Canas. Chris J Trujillo worked as a Pharmacist for the State of New Mexico and in 2020 had a reported pay of $38.66/HR according to public records. Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to establish elements one and three beyond a reasonable doubt-that Defendant intended for Allison to shoot and kill Mendez and that Defendant helped or encouraged him to do it. Furthermore, both identified Defendant as one of the shooters from a photo lineup shown to them by Detective Shawn the night of the shooting. Carolina possesses extensive experience scaling and launching startups by connecting strategy, data, and operational execution in ambiguous and challenging environments. VI, 2. {25} In order to convict Defendant of first-degree depraved-mind murder as a principal, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime: (1)The defendant discharged a firearm several times from the balcony of an apartment dwelling; (2)The defendant's act caused the death of Javier Mendez; (3)The act of the defendant was greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind without regard for human life; (4)The defendant knew that his act was greatly dangerous to the lives of others; (5)This happened in New Mexico on or about the 3rd day of July, 1997. Do you know how many shots Charlie fired? {78} Both familial loyalty and fear of retaliation could lead to an inference that Ortiz would not have made the statement to the police unless he believed it to be true. However, Ortiz apparently could not recall more specific details of the shooting, including who fired the gun. $3895 . Because of my disposition of Defendant's evidentiary objection, I would not reach parts VII or X. Because I find none of the other rules relied upon by the State and the trial court persuasive, I would remand for a new trial and not allow the substantive use of the evidence. First, Ortiz's fear of retaliation went to his credibility, by showing that he had valid reasons-including the safety and well-being of himself and his family-for being less than candid about his cousin's and Defendant's involvement in the shooting at trial. In fourteen pages of transcript discussion, the trial court only once mentions Rule 11-803(X) and it certainly cannot be said to be the thrust of the State's argument. BLOG; CATEGORIES. The State also presented evidence that there was a verbal exchange between Allison, Defendant and Mendez and that some gang identification prompted the shooting. Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecutor's leading questions did not constitute fundamental error. However, under the statute, juvenile offenders convicted of first-degree murder may be sentenced to life imprisonment but shall not be punished by death. Id. We therefore find no error. Chris Trujillo Lead IT Specialist at NNMC Santa Fe County, New Mexico, United States 73 followers 70 connections Join to view profile Northern New Mexico College Northern New Mexico. His fear could have had the same effect on his statement to the police. Lucky was born in Pojoaque, New Mexico on August 12, 1943 to Luis Trujillo and Andalecia Archibeque. Her desire to . Defense counsel, in a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct, alleged two instances in which the State failed to provide material evidence to the defense. {28} At trial, the evidence showed that Defendant and Allison were standing on the second floor balcony and opened fire at a group of rival gang members below. {77} In fact, the State introduced evidence of Ortiz's and Defendant's gang membership to explain why Ortiz may have lied at trial and to provide a motive for the quarrel. {27} Defendant's reliance on Hernandez is misplaced. He also identified Defendant as one of the shooters from a photo lineup performed by Detective Shawn and again positively identified Defendant as one of the shooters at trial. He is preceded in death by his great grandmother Flora Ortiz, grandfathers Johnny Bustamante, Manuel Trujillo, Luis Avitia, uncles Eric Bustamante, Mark Trujillo, aunts Elaine Whatley, Darlene Anaya and numerous other relatives. He stated that he was beaten up by other gang members when he was ranked out because he was no longer hanging out with them. 2023 a domestic/family case was filed by Trujillo . See State v. Nieto, 2000-NMSC-031, 25, 129 N.M. 688, 12 P.3d 442 (finding expert testimony on defendant's gang affiliation and specific rituals and procedures of that gang was admissible to show defendant's alleged motive). He earned his wings too soon on May 4, 2021. Defendant argues that Javier, presumably, had long since turned and run, and in all likelihood had already been hit by the fatal bullet when Defendant began shooting. State v. Garcia, 114 N.M. 269, 275, 837 P.2d 862, 868 (1992). {46} Finally, Defendant argues that defense counsel's failure to challenge the indictment for conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder, a non-existent crime, constituted per se ineffectiveness. {42} Defendant also claims that his attorney failed to complete his interview with Ortega. We disagree. We do not find the trial court's decision to be arbitrary, capricious, or beyond reason. Inmate Profiles . Title: Microsoft Word - 2023-01-25 SJ County H2 Fact Sheet - FINAL.docx Author: Chris Created Date: 1/25/2023 9:37:23 AM . Exercising this discretion, the trial court sentenced Defendant to a term of THIRTY (30) YEARS, BUT NOT LIFE for his first-degree murder conviction. Chris was a hard worker and established his company "All American Towing" in 2017. An autopsy report shows Gustavo Surez, a 21-year-old American, was shot 12 times after he failed to stop while being chased by Mexican soldiers, who opened fired after he crashed. Please try again. He claims that the testimony came out during defense counsel's examination of Detective Shawn, during which defense counsel asked Shawn an open-ended question about one of his interviews. Faced with the possibility of gang retaliation, Ortiz might have felt pressure to give an incomplete or inaccurate description of the events. He was born and raised in Bernal, New Mexico to Ted Trujillo and LuAnna Bustamante. Christopher Trujillo in New Mexico 283 people named Christopher Trujillo found in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and 6 other cities. {72} I would, however, remand for a new trial because I believe for the following reasons that the admission of the tape and transcript of Joseph Ortiz's interview with the police was reversible error. An isolated, minor impropriety ordinarily is not sufficient to warrant reversal, because a fair trial is not necessarily a perfect one. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, 95, 128 N.M. 482, 994 P.2d 728 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Pound was taken to the hospital and removed from. New Mexico Counties Filter by filled date. The second reference came in the middle of his argument about the consistent statements of Ortega and Ortiz: You'd expect two completely different stories if we believe this theory that everyone in gangs lies. View Chris Trujillo results in New Mexico (NM) including current phone number, address, relatives, background check report, and property record with Whitepages. Defendant supports his argument with his counsel's own statement, If I would have been able to interview Jesus, put him under oath, we could have had a statement here So I've been thwarted in that. As noted above, Canas and Ortega were arrested and brought in on material witness warrants shortly before trial. Cf. He testified that he had planned to meet up with Mendez at the apartments on the day of the shooting and that soon after he arrived he heard an argument and gunshots. Now, who was Charlie shooting at, if you know? Because we find substantial evidence in the record to support Defendant's convictions, and because Defendant failed to demonstrate circumstances that shock the conscience or show a fundamental unfairness, we find no fundamental error. This Constitutional provision is buttressed by Rule 12-102(A)(1) and NMSA 1978, 34-5-8(A)(3) (1983) which reiterate this limitation to our jurisdiction. As noted above, Mendez then responded, we can go anywhere we want, Juaritos. We find that the passing of the gun between Allison and Defendant and the evidence of a verbal conflict between the competing gang members immediately preceding the shooting is sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that either by words or acts there was an agreement to shoot at the men located below the balcony with a deadly weapon. Finally, we find there was little danger that Ortiz misjudged, misinterpreted, or misunderstood what he saw that evening because there were no impediments to his perception and because he was present throughout the event. Trujillo found that something when he got. He was born and raised in Bernal, N.M., to Ted Trujillo and LuAnna Bustamante. Sys., 112 N.M. 226, 230, 814 P.2d 94, 98 (1991); Lowe v. Bloom, 110 N.M. 555, 555, 798 P.2d 156, 156 (1990). Nearly 24% of New Mexicans rely on SNAP, the highest rate in the . {15} As a general rule, the [a]dmission of evidence is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and rulings of the trial judge will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.2 State v. Worley, 100 N.M. 720, 723, 676 P.2d 247, 250 (1984); see also Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, 10, 128 N.M. 410, 993 P.2d 727; State v. Torres, 1998-NMSC-052,15, 126 N.M. 477, 971 P.2d 1267; State v. Stout, 96 N.M. 29, 32, 627 P.2d 871, 874 (1981). In other words, if a statement is inadmissible under a prior hearsay exception, the statement may nonetheless be considered for admission under the catch-all exception. United States v. Earles, 113 F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir.1997). It cannot be invoked when the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received a fair trial. Id. Pursuant to NMSA 1978, 30-2-1(A)(3) (1994) (first-degree depraved-mind murder); 30-2-1(A)(3) and NMSA 1978, 30-28-2(B)(1) (1979) (conspiracy to commit first-degree depraved-mind murder); NMSA 1978, 30-3-2(A) (1963) and NMSA 1978, 31-18-16 (1993) (aggravated assault); NMSA 1978, 30-3-5(A) & (C) (1969) and NMSA 1978, 30-28-2(B)(3) (1979) (conspiracy to commit aggravated battery); NMSA 1978, 30-3-8(A) (1993) and NMSA 1978, 30-28-2(B)(2) (1979) (conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (great bodily harm)); 30-3-8(A) and 30-28-2(B)(3) (conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (resulting in injury)); 30-3-8 (shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (no injury)); and 30-3-8(A) and 30-28-2(B)(3) (conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (no injury)). {67} For the reasons stated above, we vacate Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder and reverse Defendant's convictions for conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (great bodily harm), conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (resulting in injury), shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (no injury), and conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (no injury). Email. However, by bringing this evidence in through Detective Shawn, Defendant was able to argue that the police did an inadequate investigation, potentially leaving the jury with reasonable doubt as to the identification of the shooters. We find there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of first-degree depraved-mind murder on either of these theories. We conclude that a rational jury could find, from this testimony, that beyond a reasonable doubt Defendant's act of shooting into the crowd caused Mendez's death. Chris Trujillo is a provider established in Albuquerque, New Mexico and his medical specialization is Pharmacist. {83} In this case, the State initially offered the testimony under Rule 11-803(E) (recorded recollection), and that was the focus of most of its discussion. {80} We have said-and as a general matter I agree-that we should defer to the discretion of the trial judge on evidentiary matters. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Write a prisoner today. It appears that in this case the jury rejected Defendant's version of the incident, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury. 2052) (internal citation omitted). Are you getting ready to buy a new car? Ortiz, however, did have a motive to shift the blame for the fatal shot from his cousin to Defendant, assuming-as I think we can-that Ortiz was aware that eyewitnesses put both his cousin and Defendant on the balcony, and assuming familial loyalty to his cousin. From the onset of New Mexico jurisprudence, first-degree murder convictions have been appealed directly to this Court, and even after the creation of the Court of Appeals, this Court retained this crucial area of jurisdiction. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). {5} Ortega testified that someone on the balcony asked the four men what they were doing in the Barelas neighborhood and that Mendez responded, We could be anywhere we want, Juaritos. Immediately thereafter shots were fired down at them from the balcony. Engage via Email. Finally, I do not think that the use of Rule 11-803(X) in this context comports with its drafters' intentions. According to Ortiz's statement, after Defendant resisted Allison's request for the gun, Defendant told the four down below, You guys think I'm joking, and began shooting. The essence of the dissent's argument on this point is that while one could reason that Ortiz would not have implicated a family member unless he believed it to be true, equally one could reason that he had a motive to shift the blame from his cousin to Defendant because of familial loyalty, fear of retaliation, and his presumed belief that his cousin would be less culpable. In this case the person in the best position to gauge the candor of the out of court statement was Detective Shawn, who alone observed Ortiz's demeanor at the time of the interview. He was buried on month day 2001, at burial place. The jury had testimony from two other eyewitnesses, Ortiz and Ortega, that support its findings of guilt. {56} We agree that Detective Shawn's statements regarding Canas' identification of Defendant was improper hearsay testimony. Chris was a. The famous stars were married for over a decade until they split in . In other words, [t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Brazeal, 109 N.M. at 757-58, 790 P.2d at 1038-39 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. {16} The trial court found the statement admissible under Rule 11-803(X), and we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion by admitting Ortiz's statement under this Rule. See State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, 10, 128 N.M. 410, 993 P.2d 727. See the links below for more info. Add new skills with these courses [W]here a jury verdict in a criminal case is supported by substantial evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Anaya, 98 N.M. 211, 212, 647 P.2d 413, 414 (1982). UJI 14-2822 NMRA 2002. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. Under those circumstances, I am not persuaded that the reasons for the principle of deference apply. While we agree that the subjective beliefs of the declarant about legal culpability can be relevant in determining the admissibility of hearsay, see Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, 18, 126 N.M. 477, 971 P.2d 1267, Ortiz never testified as to what his subjective beliefs were and we refuse to engage in speculation on that point. The dissent notes that the statement lacks circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness because Detective Shawn, the person in the best position to gauge the candor of the out of court statement felt that Ortiz was lying to him. It makes little sense to allow adults convicted of first-degree murder to appeal directly to this Court, but to force juveniles convicted of the same crime to first appeal to the Court of Appeals. . {79} I also note that the detective who took Ortiz's statement felt that Ortiz was lying to him. {7} Defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced for first-degree murder as a serious youthful offender pursuant to NMSA 1978, 31-18-15.3(D) (1993), which allows a district court to sentence the offender to less than, but not exceeding, the mandatory term for an adult. NMSA 1978, 31-18-14(A) (1993) grants the district court discretion in sentencing minors who have been convicted of a capital felony: [I]f the defendant has not reached the age of majority at the time of the commission of the capital felony for which he was convicted, he may be sentenced to life imprisonment but shall not be punished by death. (Emphasis added.)