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

• Defendant Donovan King and Justin Mark were implicated in the murder of Kevin Lossiah, which occurred on May 29, 2011. After arriving at Lossiah's apartment, neighbors heard disturbances and called the police, who found Lossiah severely beaten. Both King and Mark were arrested shortly after, with Lossiah's blood found on their clothing. King was charged and convicted of first-degree murder among other charges. During custodial interrogations, King was promised by the prosecution through a detective that if he located and produced the murder weapon, a tampering with evidence charge would be dismissed. King complied, but the charge was not dropped (paras 2-4, 6-10).

Procedural History

• State v. Mark, No. 34,025, dec., ¶¶ 1, 48 (N.M. Sup. Ct. Apr. 13, 2015) (non-precedential): Upheld Mark’s conviction for first-degree murder.
• State v. King, 2013-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 1-2, 13, 300 P.3d 732: Upheld the district court’s determination that King’s interrogation on May 29, 2011, violated his constitutional rights, making his incriminating statements from that interview inadmissible at trial.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the prosecutor failed to fulfill a promise to dismiss the tampering with evidence charge in exchange for King locating and producing the murder weapon, which constituted a breach of agreement.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the agreement with the defendant was not explicitly to dismiss the tampering charge but to discuss dismissal, suggesting that the promise was not definitively broken.

Legal Issues

• Whether the prosecutor made a promise to dismiss one of the charges if the defendant would locate and turn over the murder weapon, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
• Whether the defendant was on notice that he could be convicted as an accessory even though he was only charged as a principal.
• Whether the defendant's statements were hearsay not falling within any recognized exception.
• Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The tampering with evidence conviction is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing. All remaining convictions, including first-degree murder, are affirmed (para 35).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico, per Bosson, J., found that the prosecutor, through Detective Martinez, made a promise to dismiss the tampering charge if King produced the murder weapon, which King did. The failure of the prosecutor to dismiss the charge constituted a breach of agreement, warranting specific performance as the remedy by vacating the tampering conviction (paras 10-19). The Court also addressed other issues raised by King, including the jury instruction on accessory liability, the hearsay objection to King's statements, and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found no merit in these additional issues, except for vacating the tampering conviction based on the unfulfilled prosecutorial promise (paras 20-33).