1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Ju ly

18, 201 6 4 N O. 34, 182 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 MATI AS LOZ A, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant.
10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF OTER O C OUN TY 11 M ar k T. S an ch ez , D ist ri ctJu dg e
12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Charles J. Gutierr ez, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rque , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Alderm an Law F irm 18 K im be rl y L
. A lde rm an -P en ix 19 De nver, C O 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 WECH SLER , Jud ge. 3 { 1} D ef

en d a n tM a t i a s L o z aap p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r r a c k e t e e r i n g , c o n t r a ry

to 4 N MS A 197 8, Se ct ion30- 42- 4( C) ( 2002 , a m en de d 20 15) , and c onsp ir ac y to co m m it 5 rackete ering, c ontrary

to Section 30-42-4(D). On a ppeal, De fendant first ar gues that 6 the district court im

properly adm itted evidence of uncharged crim es, wrongs, or other 7 ac ts. H ow ev er , w he n, a s he re , the unch arge d c ri m es , w ro ngs, or oth er a ct s are the 8 pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s to c harg es of

r ac ke te er ing and con spi ra cy to c om m it ra ck et ee ri ng, 9 Rule 11-404(B) NM RA is inappl icable. De fendant a dd i t i on a l l y ar gu e s tha

t the district 1 0 co u rti m

p ro p er l y ad m i t t ed th e t ra n s cr i p to f a n au d i o re co rd i n g i n wh i ch a s h er i ff ’s 11 office dete ctive identified four d istinct voices, in cluding De fendant’ s. W e conclude, 12 how ev er , that the de te ct ive w as suf fi ci en tly fam ili ar w iththe r ec or de d vo ic es to m ak e 1 3 i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n u n d e r

N e wM e x i c o l a w . We th e r e f o r e a f f i rm.16 D ur ing the co ur se of D ef en dant’ s tr ia l, the St at e of fe re d a subs tanti al a m ount 1 17 of testim ony

and evidence to dem onstrate (1 ) t he AZ Boy s’ status as a crim inal 1 8 en t er p ri s e, (2 ) D ef

en d a n t ’s af

fi l i at i o n wi t h th e A Z B o ys, a n d(3 ) D ef en d an t ’s 19 pa rti ci pa ti on in a pa tt ern of rack et eeri ng act iv it ie s. See State v . C rews , 19 89 -NMCA20 088 , ¶

47, 110 N
. M. 723 , 799 P
. 2d 5 92 ( de sc ri bin g th e es se nti al e le m en ts o f 21 ra ck et ee ri ng)

. T his opi nio n dis cu sse s onl y the te sti m ony an d ev ide nc e ne ce ssary to 22 res ol ve th e le ga l i ss ue s ra is edon ap pe al

. 2 1 BACKGRO UND 2 { 2} D ef

en dant w as ind ic te d f

or statut or y vio la tio ns al le ge dly

c om m itt ed dur ing his 3 association with an organization ref erre d to as the AZ Boy s. The principal crim inal 1 4 enterprise of the A Z B oy s was the distribution of m etham phetam ine. 5 { 3} In the ear ly

m orning h ours of

N ovem ber 1, 2011 , O tero County Sherif f’ s Of fice 6 Ser ge a nt G e r a l di ne M a rt i ne z w a s on r ou t i ne pat r ol on T a y l or R a nc h R oa d near 7 Alam ogordo , N ewMexico. A t approxim ately 3:30 a.m ., Ser geant Martinez w as 8 dis pa tc he d to inv es tig at e a poss ibl e hom e inv asio n on San P edro D ri ve . Whil e 9 pr oc ee d i n g t o S a n P e d r o D r i v e , S e r g e a n tM a rt i n e z o b s e rv e dav e h i c l e c o m p l e te ly 10 en gul fe d inf

lam es ne ar

the int er se ctio n of

S anP edro D ri ve and H am ilt on R oa d. 11 Sergeant Martinez attem pted to determ ine if the vehicle w as occupied, but she wa s 12 una ble to do s o. S he the n pr oc ee de d a s di spa tc he d. 13 { 4} Upon he r arri va l, Se rg eant M ar tin ez m ad e co nta ct

w iththe hom eo w ne r w ho 14 dir ec te d he r to a

she d onthe sou thw es t po rt ion of th e pr ope rty . Whil e se ar ch ing in 15 an d aro und the she d, S er ge an t M ar tin ez obs er

ve d De fe ndant ly ing und er atr ai le r. S he3

1 ins tr uc ted D ef

en dant t o e xit

. A ft er

e xit ing , D ef

en dant w as “ sw eatin g he av ily , and 2 ap pe ar ed

to be r ea lly

ne rv ous, and s m el le d of

ga s. ” D ef en dant w as take n in to c ust ody 3 an d tr an spor

te d f or m ed ic al e va luatio n. 4 { 5} At a

pproxim ately the sam e ti m e, the Oter o County Fire D epartm ent responded 5 to the vehicle fire observed by Ser geant Martinez. Fire dep artm ent personnel 6 extingu ished the fire and disco v er ed a dece ased person insid e the vehicle. 7 In ve sti gati on in dic at ed that the f ir e w as int en tio na lly

ign ite d by

use of an ig nit ab le 8 liquid

. T he de ce as ed

pe rs on wa s subse que ntl y ide nti fi ed as Ri ch ar d Va lde z, an d th e 9 cause of death w as determ ined to be hom icidal violence. The vehicle wa s identified 10 as a200 6 S uz uki statio n w ag on p ur ch as ed by am em be r of the A Z Bo y s. 11 { 6} Af

t er b ei n g identified as a suspect in Valdez’ s death, D efendant w as 1 2 t ra n s p o rt ed t o Ge ra l dCh amp i o n Re g i o n al Me d i ca l Ce n t erb y Ot er o Co u n t y Sh er i ff ’s 13 O ff ic e D ep uty E dw ar d Garc ia to hav e a bloo d sam ple dr awn. Whil e at

the hos pit al , 14 D ef en dant o ff

er ed D ep uty G ar ci a $40, 000 if D ep uty G ar ci a w oul d r el ea se D ef en dant 15 fr om c ust ody

. D ep uty

G ar ci a re fu se d. D ef

en dant the n o f

f e r e d D e p uty G ar c i a $ 50, 000. 16 De putyGarcia a gain r efused. De puty Garcia recorded this interac tion o n his po cket 17 recorder

and reported it to his su pervisor. 18 { 7} D ef

en dant w as ini tia lly

c harged w ithr ac ke te er ing , c onsp ir ac y to co m m it 19 ra ck et ee ri ng, ars on, tw o c ount s of tam pe ri ng w ith ev ide nc e, an d brib er y of apub lic15 D ef

en dant o bj ec te d to the a dm iss ionof audi o r ec or din gs d ow nlo ad ed f ro m his 2 16 cellular telepho ne on the ground that the State failed to obt ain an independen t search 17 w ar rant f or the c ont en ts o f his c el lul ar te le phone. D ef en dant d id n ot r ai se thi s 18 ar gum en t onappe al

. 4 1 of fi ci al

. W iththe e xc ep tio n of r ac ke te er ing an d c onsp ir ac y to co m m it ra ck et ee ri ng, 2 the c harg es a ga ins t D ef en dant w er e dis m iss ed

w ith out pr ej udi ce an d r e- fi le d a s a 3 separate c ause of action. P rior to trial, the State filed noti ce of its intent to introd uce 4 R u l e 1 1

- 4 0 4 ( B ) e v i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e o f mur d e r , ar s o n , an db r i b e ry. 5 { 8} In cl ude d inthi s e vid en ce and i ntr oduc ed a t tri al was an audi o r ec or din g 6 downloaded from

one of De fendant’ s cellular telephones in which various m em bers 7 of the A Z Bo y s d i s c u s s e dth e d i s p o s a l o f ad e a db o d y . T h e d i s p o s a l m e c h a n i sm 8 discuss ed wa s to “ torch” a c ar w ith the bo dy inside. Ote ro County

Sherif f’ s Of fice 9 D et ec tiv e Fa

bian P ic az o id en tif

ie d th e voi ce s on the re co rd ing as tho se of D ef en dant 10 an d A Z Bo y s m em

be rs Bo b C ha ve z, Joe Ch av ez , and J oe Ch av ez Jr . The audi o 11 re co rd ing and a

tr an sc ri pt o f the dis cu ssi on, w hic h id en tif ie d th e ind ivi dua l sp eake rs , 12 w er e adm itt ed

int o e vid en ce ove r obj ec tio n. 2 13 { 9} D ef

en dant w as c onv ic te d inaj ur y tr ia l of r ac ke te er ing a nd c onsp ir ac y to 14 co m m it ra ck et ee ri ng. T his appe al f oll ow ed

.5

1 STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W 2 { 10} W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s a dm iss ionof e vid en ce f

or an ab use of

dis cr et ion

. 3 St ate v . J

aram illo , 2 0 1 2

- N M C A

- 0 2 9 , ¶ 1 7 , 2 7 2 P
. 3 d6 8 2
. “ A n ab u s e o f dis cr et ion 4 oc curs w he n th e ru lin g is c le ar ly a ga ins t the log ic and e ff ec t of the f ac ts and 5 circum stances of the case. ” Sta te v . T hom pson , 2009-NMC A- 076, ¶ 1 1 , 146 N.M. 6 663, 213 P.3d 813 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 7 RU LE 11-404(B) 8 { 11} A s age ne ra l r

ule , e vid en ce of

unc harg ed

c ri m es , w ro ngs, or oth er ba d a ct s is 9 re fe rr ed

to as c hara ct er

e vid en ce or

pr ope nsi ty

e vid en ce , and is in ad m issibl e in 10 cri m in al tri al s. See Ru le 11- 404( B) (1 ) (“ E vid en ce of a cr im e, w ro ng, or oth er ac t i s 11 not adm issib le to prove a p er s o n ’s ch arac ter in order to show that on a particular 12 oc ca sio n the pe rs on ac te d in a cc or danc e w iththe c hara ct er . ”) ; se e Sta te v . B ea ch um , 1 3 1 9 8 1 -N M CA -0 8 9 , ¶6 , 9 6 N.M . 5 6 6 , 6 3 2 P .2 d 1 0 2 4 (“Un d erRu l e [ 1 1 -]4 0 4 [( B) ], 14 ev ide nc e of

oth er cr im es , w ro ngs, or ac ts is n ot a dm iss ibl e to s howthat the de fe ndant 15 ha d apr ope nsi ty

to co m m it tho se cr im es . ”)

. T his ru le is exp re ssl y li m ite d by

Ru le 11- 16 404( B) (2 ), w hic h a llo w s th e adm iss ionof c hara ct er

e vid en ce if

the e vid en ce is 17 of fe re d f or “ an oth e r p ur p o s e , s u c ha s p r o v i n g m o t i ve , opp ortun ity , int en t, pr ep ar at ion , 18 plan, knowledge, identity , a bsence of m istake, or lac k of ac ci d en t.” For char acter6

1 evidence to be adm issib le in a cr im inal trial, the state m ust “ provide reasonable notice 2 of the general nature of any such evidence[.] ” Rule 11-404(B)(2)( a). 3 { 12} Ne w Me xico’ s Rule 11-404(B)(1) m irrors Rule 404(b)(1) of the Fe deral Rules 4 of E vid e n c e an dw a s a d o p t e di n 2 0 1 2 “ t o b e c o n s i s t e n tw i t h th e r e s t y l i n g o f the 5 Fe de ra l R

ule s of E vid en ce [. ] ” Ru le 11- 404 co m m . c m t. S inc e the language of our 6 Ru le 11- 404( B) (1 ) is i de nti ca l t o that of f ed er al Ru le 404 (b )( 1) , w e m ay loo k to the 7 fed eral co ur ts forgu id an ce as to th e p r o p e r ap pl ic at io n o f th e ru le

. See Kipnis v. 8 Ju sbas ch e , 2015 -N MCA -071, ¶ 7, 352 P.3d 687 (“ When the state and federa l 9 evid en ce rules are identical, w e m ay rely on interpretations o f the fe deral rule a s 10 persuasive authority .” ), cert. grant ed , 201 5- N MC E RT -0 06, 367 P
. 3d 8 52. 11 Inapplicability of R ule 11-404(B) to C harges of Rack etee ring a nd Conspiracy to 12 C om m itR ac k et ee ri ng 13 { 13} D ef

en dant w as tr ie d onc harg es of r ac ke te eri ng , c ontrary

to Se ct ion30- 42- 14 4(C), and conspi racy to com m it racketee ring, contrar y to Section 30-42-4(D). 15 De fendant argues on appeal that the district c ourt’ s adm issio n of evidence of “ other” 1 6 c r i me s i n c l u d i n g mu r d e r , ar s o n , an db r i b e ry w a s e rr o r . S p e c i f

i c a l l y , D e f

e n d a n tc l a i ms 17 that “ the State used evi dence o f th e alleged hom icide, arson, and bribery to show that 18 [D efendant] com

m itted the charged offenses because he com m itted the other sim ilar 19 act s.”17 O tero Co un ty D is tri ctCo ur t Cause N os. D -1 215- CR -2 011- 0046 7 a nd D -1 215- 3 18 CR -2 014- 0006 3. 7 1 { 14} Although De fendant wa s additio nally charged with m

urder, arson, and bribery 2 in s ep ar at e cr im ina l pr oc ee din gs, Ru le 1 1- 404( B) , if appl ic ab le , w oul d li m it the 3 3 St at e’s ab il it y

to in tro du ce ev id en ce o f th es e cri m es in th e cu rren t ca se . See State v. 4 G all egos , 200 7- N MS C- 007, ¶ 21, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P
. 3d 8 28 ( de sc ri bin g th e 5 pr ej udi ci al e ff

ec t of pr ope nsi ty

e vid en ce a nd the pr ope r ap pli catio n of Ru le 11- 6 404( B ) )

. T h e r e f

o r e , t h e ap p l i c ab i l i t y o f R u l e 1 1

- 4 0 4 ( B ) t o t h e r a c k e t e e r ing a nd 7 co nspi ra cy

to co m m it ra ck et ee ri ng ch arge s a ga ins t D ef en dant i s c en tr al to our 8 i n qu i ry. 9 { 15} Se ct ion30- 42- 4( C) pr ovi de s that “ [i ] t is unlaw fu l f or ape rs on e m

plo y ed by or 10 as soc ia te d w ithan e nte rp ri se to co nduc t or part ic ipate , dir ec tly

or ind ir ec tly , in the 11 co nd uc t o f th e en te rp ris e’s affa irs by en ga gi ng in a p at te rn of r ack et eeri ng act iv it y .” 12 Se ct ion30- 42- 4( D ) pr ovi de s th at “ [i ] t is unlaw fu l for a per son to c onsp ir e to v iol at e 13 the pr ovi sio ns . . . of th is se ct ion

. ” T he r ac ke te er ing statut e de fi ne s “pa tte rnof 14 ra ck et ee ri ng ac tiv ity ” as “ en ga gin g in at le as t tw o inci de nts of r ac ke te er ing w iththe 15 int en t of

a cc om pli shi ng any of th e prohi bit ed a ct ivi tie s se t f

orth i n [ Se ct ion30- 42- 16 4(A) -(D )] .” NMS A 1978, § 30-42-3(D) (2009). T he s t at ute further def ines8

1 “ rackete ering” in term s of twe nty -five distinct predicate offe nses, including m urder, 2 arson, and bribery . S ection 30-42 -3(A ). 3 { 16} Be ca

use N ewMe xic o’ s r ac ke te er ing statut e de fi ne s vi olatio ns b y r ef er en ce to 4 pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s, the pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s ar e es se nti al co m

pone nts of

ar ac ke te er ing 5 of fe nse . E vid en ce of the pr ed ic at e of fe nse s is, the re fo re , intri nsi c rathe r than e xtr ins ic 6 to a r ac ke te er ing c harg e. U nit ed S ta te s c ir cu it co urts h av e he ld tha t f ed er al Ru le 7 4 0 4 (b ) do es no t ap pl y

to su ch in tri ns ic ev id en ce. Se e U ni t e d Stat es v . P ar

ker , 553 8 F. 3d 1 309, 131 4 ( 10th C ir

. 200 9) (“ Bec au se R ule 404 (b ) onl y

li m its e vid en ce of 9 ‘ other’ crim es—those extrinsi c to the charged cr im e—evidence o f acts or events that 10 ar e part

of the cr im e its el f, or ev ide nc e es se nti al to the co nte xt of the c ri m e, doe s no t 11 fa ll unde r the oth er

c ri m es li m itatio ns o f Ru le 404 (b ). ”) ; see also United States v. 12 Gree n , 617 F. 3d 23 3, 249 (3rd Cir. 2010 ) (“ If uncharged m iscondu ct directly proves 13 the ch ar ge d off

en se , it is n ot e vid en ce of

som e ‘ oth er ’ c ri m e. ”) ; se e als o B lac k’ s L aw 14 Dictionary 899 (9 th ed. 2009 ) (d ef ini ng “ intri nsi c” as “ [b ] el ongi ng to a thing by it s 15 very nature; not dependent on external circum stances; . . . essential”). 16 { 17} Whil e thi s C ourt ha s no t pr ev iou sl y dete rm ine d th e ap pli ca bil ity of Ru le 11- 17 404( B) to the pr ed ic at e of fe nse s of ar ac ke te er ing c harg e, our appe llate c ourt op ini ons 18 de te rm ini ng the ap pli ca bil ity of Ru le 11- 404( B) to “ oth er ” an d “ ex tr ins ic ” ac ts are in 19 acco rdwit h t he Uni te d S ta te s C irc ui t Co ur t h ol di ng s ci te d abo ve .9

1 { 18} Fo r ex am

ple , in Sta te v . R uiz , the de fe ndant w as ch ar ge d wi th m ult ipl e co unt s 2 of crim inal sexual penetration of a m inor and crim inal sexual contact with a m inor. 3 2007 -N MC A -0 14, ¶

1, 141 N
. M. 53, 150 P
. 3d 1 003. T he vic tim w as a fr ie nd o f one 4 of th e d efen da nt ’s da ug ht ers , and sh e freq ue nt edth e d efen da nt ’s ho m e. Id

. ¶ 2. T he 5 de fe ndant w as c harg ed w ith fi ve of

fe nse s, inc lud ing one in Jul y 1997 , ba se d up on the 6 vi ct im ’s abi li ty t o di st in gu is h th e g en eral na tu re an d t im in g o f th e as sa ul ts . Id

. ¶ 29. 7 A t tri al , the state of

fe re d test im ony

f ro m the de fe ndant’ s e lde st d au ght er in w hic h sh e 8 de sc ri be d w itn es sin g th e de fe ndant t ouc hin g th e vic tim ’ s ge nit al are a in Jul y 199 7. 9 Id

. ¶ 27. T he defendant argued that such te stim ony constitu ted evidence of “prior bad 10 act s” an d w a s s u b

ject t o e xc lu si on un de r Ru le 11 -4 04 (B). R uiz , 200 7- N MC A -0 14, 11 ¶ 27. T his Co urt, a ft er de te rm ini ng tha t the w itn es s’ s te sti m ony c or ro bor at ed the Jul y 12 1997 c harg ed

of fe nse , dis ag re ed

w iththe de fe ndant’ s in te rp ret at ionof Ru le 11- 13 404(B) and held that “ [t] he inclusio n of the word ‘ other’ [in Ru l e 1 1-404(B)] 14 co nn ot es crim es , w ro ngs, or a ct s th at

are not the sub j ec t of the [ curr en t] 15 proceedings[.] ” R uiz , 20 07 -NMCA- 01 4, ¶¶27 -2 8. 16 { 19} In Sta te v. G all egos , our S upr em e Co urt a

ppl ie d asim ilar ratio na le in ar ri vin g 17 at the oppo sit e co nc lus ion

. 200 7- N MS C- 007, ¶ 28, 141 N
. M. 185 , 152 P
. 3d 8 28. T he 18 de fe ndant w as ind ic te d onse ve n c ount s of c ri m inal se xu al co nta ct of am ino r 19 (C SC M) and thr ee c ount s of ag gr av at ed ind ec en t expo sur e ste m m ing f ro m inc ide nts10

1 whi le he was a gu ard atth e You th Diag no st ic an d Det en ti on Cen te r (YDDC). Id

. ¶ 4. 2 The CSCM ch arg es aro se fro m co nd uc t wi th a fem al e Y D D C r e s id en t, J .S. Id

. T he 3 ind ec en t expo sur e charg es ar ose fr om se parate c ondu ct

w itha nothe r fe m al e re sid en t, 4 U. C. I d. ¶ 5. T he dis tr ic t c ourt deni ed the de fe ndant’ s m oti on to seve r the tw o tr ia ls. 5 Id

. ¶ 2. T he de fe ndant w as co nv ic te d onone c harg e of CS CM and tw o c harg es of 6 ag gr av at edin de cen t ex po su re. Id

. ¶ ¶ 4 , 6
. O n c e rt i o r a r i f

r o m th i s C o u rt , o u r

S up r e me 7 Co urt r ev er se d th e de fe ndant’ s C SC M c onvicti on , c onc lud ing that “ w e ar e not 8 co nf ide nt the j ur

y did not m isu se the e vid en ce pe rt ai nin g to [U.C. ] to co nvi ct [ the 9 defendant] of CSC M.” Id

. ¶ 3. Following analy sis that resulted in a con clusion that 10 no R ule 404 (B ) ex ce pti on wa s a ppl ic ab le , our

S upr em e Co ur

t he ld tha t “ the e xtr ins ic 11 acts of indecent exp osure” com m itted against U.C . “ would not h ave been 12 cross-adm issib le at separate trials[. ] ” G all egos , 200 7- N MS C- 007, ¶ ¶ 26- 36. 13 { 20} The c rim es of ra cketeer ing and conspiracy to c omm it rackete ering are defined 14 by r eferen ce to pr ed ic at e of fe nse s. Ru le 11- 404( B) is, the re fo re , ina ppl ic ab le to 15 evidence adm itted to dem onstrate these predicate off enses. Be cause adm itted 16 ev ide nc e of

m ur de r, ars on, and br ib er

y r el at ed dir ec tly to the pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s of 17 ra ck et ee ri ng an d co nspi ra cy to co m m it ra ck et ee ri ng, the dis tr ic t co urt’ s a dm iss ionof 18 thi s in tr ins ic e vid en ce did not c onst itu te an a

buse of dis cr et ion

.11

1 RULE 1 1- 90 1( B)(5 ) NMRA 2 { 21} Insup port of

it s c as e ag ai ns t Defe ndant, the S ta te intro duc ed ( 1) an audi o 3 recording recovere d from De fendant’ s cellular telephone and (2) a tr anscript of that 4 audio re cording. De fendant argues that the State’ s witness, De tective Picaz o, lac ked 5 sufficient fam iliarity

with D efendant’ s voice, as we ll as the voices of other m em bers 6 of t h e A Z B o y s , t o p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f y an d d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n f

o u r o t h e rw ise 7 uni de nti fi ed

voi ce s onthe a dm itt ed

audi o r ec or din g. 8 { 22} Ru le 11- 901( A ) pr ovi de s th at “ [t ] o satis fy

the r equir em en t of

auth en tic at ing or 9 ide nti fy ing an it em

of e vid en ce , the pr opon en t m ust pr od uc e ev ide nc e suf fi ci en t t o 10 supp ort a

f ind ing that the ite m is w ha t the pr opon en t cla im s it is. ” W ith re spe ct to the 11 ide nti fi catio n of

a pe rs on’ s voic e, a w itn es s m ay of fe r an opi nio n “ ba se d onhe ar ing 12 th e v oi ce at an y

ti m e u nd er ci rcu m st an ces th atco nn ectit wit h th e al le ge d s pe ak er.” 13 Ru le 11- 901( B) (5 ). I n in te rp re tin g R ul e 11 -901( B) (5 ), thi s C ourt, c iti ng v ar iou s 14 federa l court opini ons, has held that “ once a m ini m al show ing ha s be enm ad e that the 15 w itn es s ha s so me f

am ili ar ity w iththe voi ce he ide nti fi ed , his ide nti fi catio n te sti m ony 16 m ay be adm itted and the jury m ay then determ ine the weight to be accorded to th at 17 testim on y. ” Sta te v . P adi lla , 198 2- N MC A -1 00, ¶ 5, 98 N
. M. 349 , 648 P
. 2d 8 07 18 (em phasis add ed). As an indication of the low threshold for adm issib ility established 19 by Rul e 1 1- 90 1( B)(5 ), P adi lla dis cu sse d U nit ed Sta tes v. Sm ith , 635 F
. 2d 7 16, 71912

1 (8 th C ir

. 198 0) , ac as e in whic h the te sti fy ing w itn es s he ar d the appe llant’ s vo ic e on 2 on ly two o th er o ccas io ns . P adi lla , 198 2- N MC A -1 00, ¶ 5. 3 { 23} Du ri n g th e c o u rs e o f h i s i n v es t i g at i o n , De t ec t i v e P i ca zo h ea rd De fe n d an t ’s 4 voi ce num er ous tim es . O n th e day of D ef en dant’ s arr es t, D et ec tiv e Pi ca zo spo ke w ith 5 D efend an t i n pe rs on o n tw o se parate oc ca sio ns: f ir st, f or se ve ra l m inu te s a t the 6 hosp ita l an d, subs eque ntl y , fo r be tw ee n six ty an d nin ety m inu te s at the O te ro Co unty 7 Sh er if f’ s Offi ce . D et ec tiv e Pi ca zo a lso m oni tor ed be tw ee n si x and e igh t of 8 D ef en dant’ s te le phon e co nve rs at ion s duri ng D ef en dant’ s pr e- tr ia l i nc ar ce ratio n. 9 T he se in- pe rs on c onve rs at ion s a nd m oni tor ing a ctiv it ie s p ro vi de su ffi ci en t fo un da ti on 10 fo r D et ec tiv e Pi ca zo to ide nti fy D ef en dant’ s voic e on the a dm itt ed audi o r ec or din g. 11 { 24} Furthe rm or e, D et ec tiv e Pi ca zo e ith er int ervie w ed , or

m oni tor ed

te le phon e 12 co nve rs at ion s inv olv ing , the thr ee oth er ind ivi dua ls o n th e adm itt ed audi o r ec or din g: 13 AZ Boy s m em

bers Bob Chavez, Joe Chavez, and Joe Chavez Jr. De tective Picaz o 14 co nduc te d an in -p er son int erv ie w with B ob C ha ve z dur ing the inv es tig at iona nd 15 m oni tor ed

be tw ee n e igh t and te n of Bo b C have z’ s te le phon e co nve rs at ion s duri ng h is 1 6 i n ca rc er at i o n . De t ec t i v e P i ca zo mo n i t o re da s i m i l arn u m b ero f J o e C h av ez ’s 17 telep hone c onve rs at ion s duri ng h is i nc ar ce ratio n and b ec am e fam ili ar w ithJoe 18 Ch av ez Jr
. ’ s vo ic e dur ing the se te le phon e co nve rs at ion s.13

1 { 25} D ef

en dant c al ls o ur

a tte nti on t o c er

ta in s eg m en ts o f the tr an sc ri pt in w hic h th e 2 spe ak er

is unde te rm ine d, arg uin g th at D et ec tiv e Pi ca zo ’ s in ab ili ty to dif fe re nt iate 3 am ong the spe ak er s ina ll ins tanc es ne ga te s hi s a bil ity to of fe r anopi nio n a s to 4 ide nti ty . T his arg um en t i s unpe rs ua siv e. D et ec tiv e Pi ca zo ’ s e xpos ur e to the voi ce s of 5 De fendant and other m em be rs o f the A Z B oy s is sufficient to m ake the “ m inim al 6 show ing ” of fam ili ar ity re qui re d to a llo wD et ec tiv e Pi ca zo to of fe r anopi nio n a s to 7 t h e i d e n t i t y

of s pe ak ers on th e ad m it te d a ud io reco rd in g. Id

. A n y i n ab i l i t y t o d o so 8 w ithr es pe ct

to indi vid

ua l segm en ts of the audi o r ec or din g go es to the w ei ght of the 9 ev id en ce, n ot th e ad m is si bi li ty. Se e id. (“ The com pleteness of t he identifications g oes 10 to the w ei ght

of the ev ide nc e and not its a dm iss ibi lity . ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and 11 ci ta ti on om it te d) ). 12 { 26} Be ca

use the tr an sc ri pt o f adm itt ed audi o r ec or din gs w as a dm iss ibl e unde r Ru le 13 11-901 (B)( 5), the dist ri ct court’ s adm issio n of this evid ence did not cons titute an 14 ab us e o f di sc ret io n. 15 CON CLU SION 16 { 27} F o r

th e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e a f

f i rm. 17 { 28} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
18

____ ____ __ __ ________ ____ ____ ____ 19 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e14

1 WE CO NCUR:
2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 3 M IC HA EL D . BU ST A M A N TE , Ju dg e
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 5 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e