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

• Martha McEachin left Los Angeles for Albuquerque in March 2008 to start writing a novel in Mexico. She lived with the Defendant, Bruce Schwartz, for about one and a half months before disappearing. In May, a decomposed body, later identified as McEachin's, was found wrapped in a blue air mattress and sheets, covered with a mattress in an alley near Schwartz's apartment. After a two-year investigation, Schwartz was charged and convicted of McEachin's murder and tampering with evidence (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Robert S. “Bob” Schwartz, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, June 17, 2014, No. 34,690. Released for Publication July 8, 2014.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his rights under the confrontation clauses of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions were violated when the district court allowed four witnesses to testify via two-way video over the Internet without necessary findings of the necessity for video testimony (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Conceded that it did not provide specific reasons for the necessity of video testimony for three witnesses other than their residing outside of New Mexico and failed to make individualized factual findings required to excuse one witness's in-person appearance, thus conceding that these witnesses' testimony violated the Defendant's confrontation rights. However, argued that the video testimony was harmless and did not affect the verdict (paras 8, 15-27).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's rights under the confrontation clauses were violated by allowing witnesses to testify via two-way video without necessary findings of necessity (para 1).
• Whether the admission of video testimony was harmless and did not affect the verdict (para 15).

Disposition

• The court reversed the Defendant’s convictions due to the violation of confrontation rights and concluded that the testimony was not harmless. The court also remanded for retrial, finding sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions (para 1).

Reasons

• The court, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante with Judges Michael E. Vigil and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, found that the district court erred in permitting video testimony from four witnesses without making specific findings supporting the necessity for such testimony, thus violating the Defendant's confrontation rights (paras 8, 14). The court distinguished between the testimonies of the FBI agent, two forensic scientists, and the Defendant’s mother, finding that the State failed to demonstrate the necessity for their video testimonies (paras 8-9, 13). The court also determined that the error in admitting video testimony was not harmless, as it played a critical role in the State’s case, particularly regarding the identification of the body and the association of the Defendant with the body (paras 21-27). However, the court found the video testimony of one witness (Bas) to be harmless due to its limited evidentiary importance (para 20). Finally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for second-degree murder and tampering with evidence, allowing for a retrial (paras 30-37).