This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
In March 2018, two individuals, Mario Cabral and Vanessa Mora, were shot and killed in their home. A witness, S.D., heard the incident but did not see the assailants. The Defendant, who had a child with Cabral, was involved in a custody dispute with him. The State alleged that the Defendant hired a hitman, Edward Alonso, to kill Cabral due to the custody battle. Alonso testified that he was approached by the Defendant to commit the murder but later informed the FBI of the plot (paras 3-12).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal solicitation to commit first-degree murder.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that evidentiary rulings resulted in reversible cumulative error, the evidence was insufficient to convict her of first-degree murder, the convictions for conspiracy and solicitation constituted double jeopardy, and her right to a public trial was violated (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the evidentiary rulings were proper, and there was no double jeopardy or violation of the right to a public trial.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court commit reversible error by allowing the State to question the Defendant about her child's positive methamphetamine test?
- Was there sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of first-degree murder?
- Did the convictions for conspiracy and criminal solicitation constitute double jeopardy?
- Did the district court violate the Defendant's constitutional right to a public trial?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial (para 2).
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Bacon, Vargas, Zamora JJ. concurring):
The court found that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the State to question the Defendant about her child's positive methamphetamine test, which was not harmless error and affected the jury's verdict (paras 2, 28, 47). The court rejected the Defendant's arguments regarding sufficiency of the evidence and double jeopardy, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the solicitation and conspiracy charges were based on distinct conduct (paras 2, 56-58, 62). The court also noted that the district court erred by seizing notes from a trial observer, emphasizing the First Amendment right to access criminal trials (para 2, 67-72).
Thomson CJ., dissenting:
Thomson CJ. disagreed with the majority's decision to order a new trial, arguing that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence about the methamphetamine test as rebuttal evidence under Rule 11-404(A)(2)(a). Even if admitting the testimony was error, it was neither cumulative nor reversible, given the substantial evidence of the Defendant's guilt (paras 75-86).