AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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, David Griego, was convicted as an accessory in the murder of a ten-year-old boy, Carlos Perez (Victim), who was killed when Co-Defendant Demetrio Salas fired a gun nine times into the Victim's bedroom while he slept. The intended target was the Victim's older brother, a high school student who had a connection with Co-Defendant’s younger brother. Defendant and Co-Defendant were tried together, with Co-Defendant being convicted of first-degree murder.

Procedural History

• State v. Salas, 2010-NMSC-028: The Supreme Court issued an opinion on Co-Defendant’s appeal, which is determinative of two issues raised by the Defendant in the present appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was denied a fair trial due to improper venue ruling, the trial should have been severed from Co-Defendant, improper jury selection rulings, a mistrial was warranted after a State’s witness made an inappropriate comment to a juror, improper evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, cumulative error, and improper sentencing as a habitual offender due to the State's failure to meet its burden of proof.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the trial court's decisions regarding venue, severance, jury selection, and evidentiary rulings were proper. The State also argued that there was no prosecutorial misconduct, the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction, and the habitual offender sentencing was appropriate.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in its ruling regarding venue.
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Defendant's request to sever his trial from that of Co-Defendant.
• Whether there were improper rulings by the district court during jury selection.
• Whether a mistrial was warranted after a State’s witness made an inappropriate comment to a juror.
• Whether improper evidentiary rulings were made by the district court.
• Whether prosecutorial misconduct warranted a mistrial.
• Whether cumulative error warranted a mistrial.
• Whether the Defendant was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction of second-degree murder and his sentencing as a habitual offender.

Reasons

• Venue and Severance: The Supreme Court's decision in Co-Defendant’s appeal determined the proper ruling regarding venue and the denial of severance was not an abuse of discretion due to sufficient evidence of a common plan between Defendant and Co-Defendant (State v. Salas, 2010-NMSC-028).
  Jury Selection: The Supreme Court's decision in Co-Defendant’s appeal also addressed jury selection issues, affirming the trial court's decisions (State v. Salas, 2010-NMSC-028).
  Inappropriate Witness Comment: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial after a witness's inappropriate comment to jurors, as it took measures to ensure the jury was not affected.
  Evidentiary Rulings: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, including the refusal to give a limiting instruction regarding the testimony of certain witnesses.
  Prosecutorial Misconduct: The trial court's curative measures were sufficient to address any potential misconduct regarding the gunshot residue test question.
  911 Recording: The admission of the 911 recording was not an abuse of discretion as it had probative value and corroborated witness testimony.
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: There was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction as an accessory to the murder.
  Cumulative Error: The doctrine of cumulative error did not apply as the Defendant received a fair trial.
  Habitual Offender Sentencing: The State met its burden of proof for habitual offender sentencing by showing less than ten years had passed since the Defendant completed his sentence for a prior conviction and proving the Defendant's identity.