Case Title: State v. Ramirez

Citation: 648 P.2d 307, 98 N.M. 268

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1982-07-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
648 P.2d 307 (1982) 98 N.M. 268 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 13904. Supreme Court of New Mexico. July 12, 1982. Michael L. Rosenfield, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant. Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Eddie Michael Gallegos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee. RIORDAN, Justice. On the Court's own motion, the opinion filed on June 30, 1982 is withdrawn and the following opinion substituted. *308 Defendant Ernest Ramirez (Ramirez) was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Ramirez appeals. We reverse. The issues on appeal are: I. Whether the Assistant District Attorney's comment in closing argument violated Ramirez' fifth amendment right to remain silent, and constituted fundamental error despite opposing counsel's failure to object. II. Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony of Ramirez' alleged flight from prosecution. In his closing argument to the jury, Assistant District Attorney Ron Walker stated: Counsel for Ramirez did not object to this statement, nor did Ramirez testify at trial. We find that Mr. Walker's improper statement to the jury clearly violated Ramirez' fifth amendment right to remain silent and constituted fundamental error despite opposing counsel's failure to object. The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the States through the fourteenth amendment, states that: U.S.Const.Amend. V. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that upon arrest, fifth amendment protection warnings have to be stated to the individual. One of these warnings includes the individual's right to remain silent. In Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1965), the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor is forbidden to comment on the accused's silence, and a judge is forbidden to give jury instructions that such silence is evidence of guilt. New Mexico's Evidence Rule 513(a), N.M.S.A. 1978, states that: In State v. Lara, 88 N.M. 233, 234, 539 P.2d 623, 624 (Ct.App. 1975), the prosecutor asked the defendant's brother: The Court of Appeals in State v. Lara, supra, held that any reference to the defendant's silence had an intolerable prejudicial impact that would require a new trial. In State v. Baca, 89 N.M. 204, 549 P.2d 282 (1976), we limited State v. Lara, supra, to those times when the prosecutor is directly responsible for the improper comment on the defendant's silence. (Baca involved the unsolicited statements of a policeman witness.) In the present case, Mr. Walker commented directly on Ramirez' silence in his closing argument to the jury in violation of the fifth amendment. Under both Lara and Baca such a comment by the prosecutor constitutes fundamental error and mandates a new trial. The State argues that unless a timely objection was made to Mr. Walker's statement, the error is waived and cannot be raised or appealed. We find that Ramirez' failure to object to this closing argument is not fatal in light of State v. Baca, supra, 89 N.M. at 205, 549 P.2d at 283: State's witness, police officer David Pacheco, obtained an arrest warrant *309 for Ramirez on April 17, 1980. Ramirez was arrested a year later. At trial, the court permitted Officer Pacheco to testify over objections concerning Ramirez' flight and the efforts undertaken to effect his arrest during that year. He stated: Evidence of Ramirez' flight from the scene of the crime is admissible and relevant because it tends to show a consciousness of his guilt. State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 624 P.2d 44 (1981). Ramirez admits that flight testimony is admissible. However, where there is no evidence that Ramirez knew of the efforts undertaken by the authorities to apprehend him during the time he was sought, the specific details of those efforts are irrelevant and immaterial and therefore inadmissible. In light of the disposition of this case under point I, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the admission of testimony of the efforts undertaken by the police to arrest Ramirez constitutes reversible error. We reverse the defendant's conviction and grant Ramirez a new trial. IT IS SO ORDERED. PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.