68 P.3d 606 (Haw. 2003)
On October 25, 2014, a Santa Fe County Sheriff's Deputy responding to a medical assist call discovered the bodies of eighteen-year-old Venancio Cisneros and his thirteen-year-old girlfriend AO in Cisneros's car off a dirt road in Santa Fe.1 Autopsies indicated that gunshot wounds to the head were the cause of death for both victims and that the wounds were consistent with gunshots fired by someone sitting in the back seat of the car.2 The homicides could have occurred after 2:00 p.m. on October 24, 2014.3
On November 3, 2014, Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office Detective David Jaramillo received a call from Cisneros's mother providing contact information for potential eyewitness Emilio Benitez and arranged to speak with him.4 Benitez described seeing Cisneros's vehicle arrive at the location.5 He later saw a young, skinny individual with a little dark complexion, neck and arm tattoos, two-inch hair, a mustache, and short goatee walking away from the vehicle between 1:30 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. on October 24, 2014, while Benitez was at his friend's house.6 Benitez testified that after the recorded interview Detective Jaramillo showed him five or six jail photos including a picture of Defendant Ricardo Martinez while they sat in the detective's vehicle.7 He identified one of the individuals as the person he saw at the scene.8
On November 5, 2014, Detective Jaramillo presented Benitez with a photo array at the sheriff's office containing six photographs, some of which had been shown earlier.9 Benitez identified Defendant's photograph as the individual he saw walking away from the vehicle.10 After learning from his friend Jesus Rodriguez that police suspected him, Defendant left Santa Fe and traveled to Colorado Springs with his uncle Melicendro Martinez.11 Both were arrested on November 15, 2014.12
Cell phone records analyzed by an FBI expert showed Defendant's phone in the area of the scene at 1:54 p.m. on October 24, 2014.13 Defendant's DNA was recovered from the exterior rear passenger-side door of Cisneros's car.14 Before trial Defendant filed a motion to suppress Benitez's identification testimony.15 The State moved to admit evidence that on September 4, 2014, Defendant and a friend fired shots at an Allsup's store after an argument and that bullet casings from that incident matched casings found at the Cisneros and AO scene.16 At trial inmate Joseph Montoya testified that Defendant admitted shooting the victims because Cisneros owed him money for cocaine.17 Defendant called Montoya's ex-girlfriend who testified that Montoya was a compulsive liar.18 The jury convicted Defendant of two counts of first-degree murder and the district court imposed two consecutive life terms.19 Defendant appealed directly to the New Mexico Supreme Court.20
Whether the district court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress out-of-court and in-court identification testimony?21
Under the federal Manson standard, a court first determines whether the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive.22 If so, the court considers whether the identification was nonetheless reliable under the totality of circumstances. Relevant factors used to assess reliability include opportunity to view, degree of attention, accuracy of earlier descriptions, witness certainty, and time elapsed. Under the New Mexico Constitution, the Manson reliability test is rejected in favor of a per se exclusionary rule for unnecessarily suggestive police-arranged identifications.23 The defendant bears the initial burden to show prima facie suggestiveness.24 The state is then required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the procedure was not materially tainting or that good reason existed for its use.25
No. The photo array contained six photographs of men of equivalent age and ethnicity with similar physical characteristics including tattoos.2627 Defendant did not show that Detective Jaramillo exerted undue pressure during the sheriff's office presentation or that any photograph stood out unduly.28 Although Benitez testified that Detective Jaramillo showed him jail photos earlier in the vehicle, the record on that display remained incomplete and undeveloped at the suppression hearing.29 Defendant's expert offered only general testimony on best practices without opining that the specific procedures here were unnecessarily suggestive.30
Defendant failed to establish a prima facie showing of suggestiveness under the new state standard and suppression was not required.31
The district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the identification testimony.32
Whether the district court erred by excluding witness testimony offered by Defendant?33
Rule 11-804(B)(3) provides a hearsay exception for statements against penal interest by an unavailable declarant only when corroborating circumstances clearly indicate trustworthiness.34 Courts evaluate corroboration by factors including whether the declarant faced prosecution, motive to lie, consistency of the statement, relationship to the accused, and strength of independent corroborating evidence.35
No. The only independent corroboration was Detective Jaramillo's testimony that a mechanic reported a large sum stolen.3637 That report lacked detail about what was stolen, by whom, or when.38 This rendered the corroboration insufficient to establish trustworthiness.39 The district court nevertheless permitted Mirna to testify to her observations of cash and drugs.40 Defendant was allowed to argue that others had motive.41 Exclusion did not deprive Defendant of his defense and any error was harmless.42
The district court did not err in excluding the witness testimony.43
Whether the district court erred by admitting prior bad acts evidence under Rule 11-404(B) NMRA?44
Rule 11-404(B)(1) prohibits evidence of other crimes to prove character propensity.45 Rule 11-404(B)(2) permits such evidence when relevant to a non-propensity purpose such as opportunity.46 The probative value must not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 11-403.47 A limiting instruction is given.48
No. Surveillance footage and Defendant's admission established his presence at the Allsup's argument.4950 Forensic toolmark evidence proved that bullets from the Allsup's shooting and the Cisneros-AO homicide were fired from the same gun.51 This supported the inference that Defendant had access to the murder weapon and thereby satisfied the opportunity exception.52 The district court found the probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.53
It issued a limiting instruction restricting use to identity or opportunity.54 The evidence was not so sensational as to require exclusion.55
The district court did not err in admitting the prior bad acts evidence.56
Whether the district court erred by refusing to charge the jury in accordance with Defendant's requested instructions on the use of informant testimony?57
No. The district court gave UJI 14-5020 on witness credibility, which explains factors for assessing credibility.6061 This rendered the proffered Tenth Circuit pattern instruction superfluous.62 The requested instruction was based on a non-uniform pattern inconsistent with New Mexico law.63 It lacked impartiality by directing greater care for informant testimony.64 This unduly emphasized the defense theory rather than leaving the matter for argument.65
The district court did not err in refusing the requested informant testimony instruction.66
Whether Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution requires departure from the federal Manson standard for admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence?67
Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution affords broader due process protection than the federal Constitution in the context of eyewitness identification evidence.68 Post-Manson scientific research demonstrates that memory is malleable and reconstructive.69 Witnesses' biases influence perception and memory.70 Post-event misinformation can alter memory. Source-monitoring errors and hindsight bias can distort recollection.71 Witness confidence is malleable and can be inflated by confirmatory feedback.72 Relative judgment leads witnesses to select the person who most closely resembles memory.73 System variables under law enforcement control and estimator variables related to the crime circumstances affect identification reliability.74 These factors render the Manson two-part reliability test scientifically and jurisprudentially unsound.75
Yes. Post-Manson scientific research demonstrates that memory is malleable and reconstructive, that witnesses' biases influence perception and memory, that post-event misinformation can alter memory, and that source-monitoring errors and hindsight bias can distort recollection.76 Witness confidence is malleable and can be inflated by confirmatory feedback. Relative judgment leads witnesses to select the person who most closely resembles memory.
System variables under law enforcement control and estimator variables related to the crime circumstances affect identification reliability. Legal literature has criticized the Manson test and identified eyewitness misidentification as a leading cause of wrongful convictions.77 Several states have revised or rejected the Manson test.78 The New Mexico Legislature enacted the Accurate Eyewitness Identification Act requiring blind administration, pre-identification instructions, careful filler selection, and documentation of confidence statements.79
These developments compel rejection of Manson and adoption of a per se exclusionary rule together with abandonment of the independent source doctrine for disputed identifications.80
Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution requires departure from the federal Manson standard.81