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: N ove m

be r 28, 201 6 4 N O. 33, 709 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 R A M O N H E RN A N D E Z, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA N M IGUEL CO UN TY 11 Ge ra ld E. Ba ca , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Ke nneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 Kim berly Chavez C ook, Assistant Appellate D efender 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 GAR CIA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} De fendant Ram on H ernandez appeals his convictions for hom icide by vehicle, 4 co ntr ar y to N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 66 -8 -1 01( A ) (2 004, a m en de d 20 16), g re at bod ily 5 harm by ve hic le , c ontrary

to Se ct ion66- 8- 101( B) , an d re ck le ss dri vin g, co ntr ar y to 6 NMS A 1978, Se ction 66 -8-113(A) (1987). D efendant asserts that (1) the d i st r i ct court 7 erre d in failing to grant a m istrial following im proper testim ony regarding excluded 8 evidence by

Ne w Me xico State Police O ffice r Mar io Va squez; (2) prosecutorial 9 m i s co n du ct b ar s re t ri al ; (3 ) t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt erro n eo u s l y ad mi t t ed De fe n d an t ’s 10 co nve rs at ionw ith a vis ito r that w as re co rd ed w hil e D ef en dant w as inc ar ce rate d; ( 4) 11 the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t ev ide nc e to pr ove D ef en dant dr ove at the tim e of the a cc ide nt 12 or th at De fe ndant’s conduct wa s reckless; (5) the district court’ s finding s wer e 13 ins uf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t it s cl assif

ic at ionof hom ic ide by

ve hic le a s ase ri ous vio le nt 14 offense; (6) cum

ulative error i n t h e district court’ s evidentiary rulings d eprived 15 De fendant of a fair trial; and (7) Defendant’ s convictio n for reckless drivin g viol ates 16 the pr ohi bit iona ga ins t do ubl e j eo pard y . We hol d th at the im pr ope r te sti m ony 17 re gard in g th e pur

porte d c onf

es sio n w as e xtr em el y

pr ej udi ci al a nd w ar

rante d a 18 m istri al

. W e al so h old that the pr ose cu tor ’ s c ondu ct did not r ise to a le ve l tha t w oul d 1 9 b arr e t r i a l a n dth at th er e w as s u ff i ci en to t h erev i d en ce t o s up p o rt De fe n d an t ’s2

1 co nvi ct ion s. W e re m an d f or a ne wtr ia l. Re tr ia l ob viate s th e ne ed to ad dr es s 2 D ef en dant’ s r em ai nin g arg um en ts r ai se d onappe al

. A cc or din gly , w e re ve rse 3 D ef en dant’ s th re e co nvi ct ion s and r em an d f or ane wtr ia l. 4 BACKGRO UND 5 { 2} O n June 10, 201 2, the re w as a tw o- car co lli sio n on southbound I- 25 n ear E xit 6 307 in S anMi gue l C ounty , N ewMe xic o. D ef en dant and D om ing o G onz al es w er e in 7 one c ar , aP ont ia c se dan. Vi ct im s A ile ena nd Z ac hary S m ith( “ the S m ith s” 8 collectively

or “ Fem ale Victim ” and “ Male Victim ” respectively when refe rred to as 9 ind ivi dua ls) w er e in the oth er c ar , aS uz uki S U V

. Ma le V ic tim was dr ivi ng i n th e 10 ri ght lane w he n th e Po nti ac e nte re d th e hig hw ay a t a low rate of

spe ed

. Ma le V ic tim 11 signaled andm oved the Suzuki in to the left l ane to avoid the slow-m ovin g Pontiac. 12 T he P ont ia c le ft its lane an d w as he ad ed in a hor iz ont al dir ec tio n to w ar d th e le ft lane 13 w he r e the S uz uk i w a s dr i vi ng . M a l e V i c t i m tr i e d t o a vo i d t he P on t i a c , the tw o c a rs 14 co lli de d, ne ar ly

pe rp en dic ular. T he rig ht front o f the S uz uki hit the dr ive r’ s si de of 15 the P ont ia c, ne ar

the f ro nt e nd, a nd the a ir

ba gs i n th e Su zu ki d ep loy ed

. 16 { 3} Sh ortly

a ft er the c oll isi on, Jor ge A co sta , a pa sse rb y , sto ppe d to he lp. A co sta 17 obse rv ed

tw o pe opl e em er ge f

ro m the dr ive r’ s sid e w ind ow of the Po nti ac . T he f ir st 18 pe rs on, w ho w as la te r ide nti fi ed a s G onz al es , wa lk ed aw ay f ro m the sc en e of

the 19 ac ci de nt. T he se co nd pe rs on w as ide nti fi ed as D ef en dant. A co sta

did not obs er ve w ho3

1 had been driving the Pontiac, but D efendant told h im that “ the one who had run was 2 the one w ho h ad

dr ive n. ” T hr ough out

the inv es tig at ion an d inhis c onve rs at ion s w ith 3 the first responders, De fendant m aintained that he w as not the driver of the Pontiac. 4 H e state d to af

ir st r es pond er th at “ he di d no t kn ow ” w ho w as dr ivi ng and t old 5 of fi ce rs that G onz al es w as dr ivi ng at the ti m e of the a cc ide nt. 6 { 4} Fem ale V ictim

wa s seven m onth s pregna n t at t he tim e of the ac cident. H er 7 water broke on scene and she began to have severe contractions. Male V ictim called 8 911. Fem ale V ictim

wa s trapped in the car but first respo nders free d her and tookher 9 to the hos pit al

. T he re , doc tor s pe rf orm ed ane m er ge nc y

c es ar ean de liv er

y . Aba by boy 10 (Baby ) w as born alive but was not breathing and soon died f rom blunt force injuries 11 an d pr em at

ur ity

. F em al e V ic tim

a lso suf

fe re d othe r sig nif

ic an t i nj ur ie s w ith 12 perm anent effe cts. The Sm iths had one child after the ac cident, but doctors advis ed 13 against any

m ore children due to Femal e V ictim ’ s ongo ing health risk s associated 14 w ith the ac ci de nt. Ma le V ic tim ’ s inj ur ie s w er e not as se ri ous an d he al ed wit hout 15 lasting con sequence. 16 { 5} U lti m a t e l y , D e f e n d a n tw a s c h a r g e dw i t h m u l t i p l e c r i m e s r e l a t e dt o the 17 collisio n, including hom icide by vehicle, gr eat bodily

harm by vehicle, dr iving under 18 the influence of intox icating liqu or or drugs, and rec kless drivin g. T he State a lleged 19 that D ef

en dant w as the dr ive r of

the P ont ia c at

the ti m e of

the a cc ide nt.4

1 { 6} By the tim e of trial, Gonzales wa s not available to te stify because h e w as 2 deceased. No statem en ts from Gonzales w ere introdu ced as evidence. Evidence 3 introdu ced at tria l included th e following : (1 ) a recorded conversation between 4 De fendant and a visito r at the j ail, w ith Defe ndant m aking rem arks the State a lleges 5 im ply that D ef en dant w as the dr ive r ba se d up on a r ef er en ce to his loc at ionin the 6 ve h i c l e ; ( 2 ) a c c i d e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n t e s t i m o n y ; ( 3 ) D N A e v i d e n c e t a k e n f ro m the 7 Po nti ac a nd c om

pare d a ga ins t D ef

en dant and Gon zal es ; and ( 4) te sti m ony f ro m 8 w itn es se s onsc en e an d inve st igativ e of fi ce rs , inc lud ing im

pr ope r te sti m ony

f ro m 9 N ewMe xic o S ta te P oli ce O ff ic er Mari o V as quez th at D ef en dant h ad

c onf es se d to 10 another officer

about being “ b eh i n d t h e w heel” at the tim e of the ac cident. O ffice r 1 1 V a s qu e z ’s “ b e h i n dth e wh e e l ” h e a r s a y t e s t i mo n y wa s s p e c i f i c a l l y e x c l u d e db y a 12 pretrial m otion in lim ine, but after failing to adhere to the court’ s adm onish m ent at 13 tr ia l, it

w as ult im at el y

e xc lud ed

ag ai n by a cur at ive ins tr uc tio n to the j ur

y to 14 “ dis re gard

that st at em en t [by Offi ce r V as que z] a nd t o no t c onsi de r it fo r an y 15 pu rp os e.” 16 { 7} T he j ur

y c onvi ct ed D ef

en dant of hom ic ide by ve hic le (b as ed upone vid en ce of 17 re ck le ss dri vin g) , gr eat bo dil y harm by ve hic le ( al so b as ed

upo n e vid en ce of

r ec kle ss 18 dr ivi ng) , a nd r ec kle ss dri vin g. T he j ur y a cquitted De fe ndant o f dr ivi ng unde r the 19 inf lue nc e of int oxi catin g li quor

or dr ugs.5

1 { 8} De fendant appeals, raising num erous issues. W e address three of the issues 2 ra ise d: ( 1 ) w h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt s h o u l d h a v e g r an t e d a m i s t r i a l f o l l o w i ng t he 3 im proper ref

erenc e by

Of ficer Va squez to the excluded con fession; (2) whether 4 al le ge d pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct bars r etri al; an d (3 ) w he the r the re w as suf fi ci en t 5 ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s and r em an d f or ane wtr ia l. 6 DISC US SION 7 I. M ist ri al 8 A. The P urport ed C onfession Testim ony 9 { 9} We ad dress whether the district court erred when it failed to grant a m istrial 10 ba se d on O ff

ic er V as que z’ s im

pr ope r tr ia l te sti m ony that D ef en dant alle ge dly 11 co nf es se d to be ing “ be hin d th e w he el ” at the tim e of

the a cc ide nt. P ri or

to te sti fy ing 12 at tr ia l, O ff ic er V as que z ha d be en adm oni she d th at no s uc h c onf

es sio n w as e ve r m ad e 13 to A ge nt G om ez a nd, a s ar es ult , thi s purp or te d c onf es sio n w as e xc lud ed

f ro m the 14 St at e’ s e vid en ce a s in adm iss ibl e he ar say a nd w as not

to be m en tio ne d a t tri al

. 15 { 10} O ff

ic er Vasque z p rev io us ly prep ared a writ te n re po rt s ta ti ng Agen t Go m ez t old 16 him that D ef en dant a dm itt ed

to be ing the dr ive r. H ow ev er , A ge nt G om ez spe ci fi ca lly 17 refuted t h e ex i s t en ce of any such purpo rted confession as well as any alleged 18 statem ent m ade to Of ficer Va squez. A ccordingly , the parties agreed and stipulated 1 9 t h a tD e f

e n d a n th a d n e v e r a d mi t t e dt o A g e n t G o me z th a th e w a s th e dr i v e r a tth e t i me6

1 of the collision . T herefor e, the purported statem ent in Off icer V asquez’ s report w as 2 he ar say , f

ac tua lly inc or re ct , a nd p reju di ci al to D ef en dant. P ri or

to tr ia l, D ef

en dant 3 m ove d inli m ine t o e xc lud e an y suc h te sti m ony

r eg ar din g th e pur

porte d c onf

es sio n 4 as both factually incorrect and as prej udicial hearsay . The district c our t g ra n ted 5 De fe n d ant’ s m otion , a greeing that what O ffice r V asquez had wr itten in hi s report 6 about a purpo rted confession co n s tituted in adm issable hearsay . D efense c ouns el 7 cautioned the dis trict court and t h e State that any such testim ony

from Of ficer 8 V as que z w oul d be “ undo ab le ” an d am istri al iss ue . T he dis tr ic t c our t the n sp ec if

ic al ly 9 dir ec te d the St at e to co nf er w ith O ff

ic er V as que z an d st at ed , “ I w an t i t un de rs too d by 10 [O ff ic er V as que z] that he ’ s no t t o be r ep eatin g w ha t [ A ge nt] G om ez tol d hi m 11 oc cu rred ” an d t o “ m ak e su re t ha t h e is cle ar h e’s no t t o t es ti fy to an y he ars ay .” 12 { 11} A t tr ia l, pr ior to O ff ic er V as que z’ s te sti m ony , the pr ose cu tor r ec onf irm ed a nd 13 acknowledged the district court’ s previous d irective that it adm onish Of fic e r V a squez 14 not to testify

as t o an yth ing he was told by Agent G om ez. The district court 15 re spon de d, “ I j ust

w an t to m ake s ur e be ca use . . . I don ’ t w an t t o e nd u p w itha 16 m istri al a t this poi nt i n ti m e. ” A ft er O ff ic er V as que z w as cal le d to te sti fy a nd 17 im properly testified regarding De fendant being incarce rated, the district court issued 18 an oth er

w ar nin g and p ut the St at e on f urthe r not ic e that “ [O ff

ic er V as que z] li ke s to 19 spit ou t a lot of inform ation at a tim e, so be real caref ul with t he questio ns and be real7

1 specific with him .” Nonetheless, just m om ents later the f ollowing exchang e occurr ed 2 with O ffice r V asquez. 3 P r o s e c u t o r : W e t a l k e d ab o u t t h e s e a r c h o f t h e v e h i c l e an d th e 4 se ar chw ar rant f or [ D ] ef en dant and t he n y ou 5 interviewed, we ll, ac t u al l y Ag en t Gom ez 6 int er vie w ed [ D ] ef en dant. 7 O ff

ic er V as que z: T ha t i s c or

re ct

. 8 P r o s e c u t o r : O kay , w h a t w a s y o u r n e x t s t e p a f t e r t h a t in y our 9 inv es tig at ion ? 10 O ff

ic er V as que z: In our inv es tig at ion , uh, lik e I sa id, w e w er e out sid e 11 of the inte rv ie wr oom

w hil e A ge nt G om ez sa id 12 [D ef en dant] w er e spe ak ing

. U m , Mr

. U m , A ge nt 13 G om ez c am e out a nd s ta te d th at

the re w as a 14 co nf es sio n of be ing be hin d th e w he el

. 15 { 12} Fo llo w ing thi s e xc hange , the dis tr ic t c ourt i m m ed ia te ly r ec ogni ze d th e er

ro r 16 that had occurred and excused the j ur o rs fr o m the courtroom . O nce the j ury wa s 17 rem oved, the district court began by stating th at 1 8 Th er e w as a mot i o n i n l i m i n e w i t h re s p e c t t o w h at [O ff i ce r V as qu ez ’] 19 te sti m ony

w oul d and woul d no t be w ithr es pe ct to state m en ts b ei ng 20 m ad e by [D ] ef

en dant to A ge nt G om ez . . . an d spe ci fi ca lly the iss ue w ith 21 respect to this statem ent of co nfession. . . . [I] t wa s ordered by the court 22 that no suc h st at em en t w oul d be m ade an d th at the [ S] ta te w oul d 23 adm oni sh and d o w ha te ve r it need ed to do w iththi s w itn es s to m ak e 24 sure that [it] didn ’ t com e out. It did com e out. T here w as no [im m ediate] 25 obj ec tio n by

the de fen se but

I he ar d it

. I kno wthe j ur y he ar d it , a nd i t 26 w as som et hi ng that I or de re d no t t o ha ppe n. I ne ed

to he ar f ro m the 27 [S] tate w hy

I shouldn ’ t declare a m istrial at this tim e. 28 T he pr ose cu tor

a cknow le dge d th at

the c ourt’ s or de r w as vio la te d bu t arg ue d th at a8

1 m istri al w as not

w ar rante d, a ske d for

ac ur at ive ins tr

uc tio n, a nd s ugge ste d th at the 2 issue be addressed through c ross-exam ination of Of ficer Va squez. D efense c ouns el 3 ar gue d th at

ac ur at iv e in st ru ct ionw as not suf fi ci en t and a ske d f

or am istri al

. T he 4 dis tr ic t c ourt or al ly ru le d that the re w as “ [n o] m an if es t ne ce ssi ty ” fo r a m istri al a nd 5 that “ [i] t’ s unfair t o every one to have to spend the tim e and eff ort to com e and deal 6 w ithe m oti ona l i ssu es he re a nd [ fo r] the c ourt [ to] have to de cl ar[e a] m istri al a nd 7 ha ve to do i t ov er

a ga in. ” In ste ad , the dis tr ic t c ourt c hose to giv e the j ur y ac ur at ive 8 ins tr uc tio n. 9 { 13} T he part ie s do not dis put e that O ff

ic er V as que z’ s hears ay

te sti m ony

r eg ar din g 10 the purported confessio n by De fendant constitu ted an evidentiary error and violated 11 a spe ci fi c pr e- tr ia l or de r fo rb idd ing su ch te sti m ony . I n a ddi tio n, the S ta te doe s no t 1 2 d i s p u t e t h at De fe n d an tco u l dh av e b ee n u n fa i rl y p re ju d i ce d b y O f

f i ce r V as qu ez ’s 1 3 i mp r o p e r

t e s t i mo n y. 14 B. Th e C ur at ive In st ru ct ion 15 { 14} “ [T he appellate cou rts] review a [dis trict] court’ s denial of a m otion for m istrial 16 under an abuse of discretion stand ard. ” St ate v . F ry , 200 6- N MS C- 001, ¶

52, 138 17 N. M. 700 , 126 P. 3d 516 (internal quo tation m arks and citation om itted). T he district 18 co urt a

buse s it s di sc re tio n inr

uli ng o n a m oti on for m istri al if it ac ts in an ob vio usl y 19 erro ne ou s, ar

bi tra ry , or u nwa rran te d m an ne r, id

. ¶ 50, or w he n the de ci sio n is “ cl earl y9

1 against the log ic and effe ct o f th e fa cts and circum stances before the c ourt.” State v. 2 Lu ce ro , 199 9- N MC A -1 02, ¶ 32 , 1 27 N

. M. 672 , 986 P

. 2d 4 68 ( int er na l qu otatio n 3 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). I n de te rm ini ng whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt ab us ed it s 4 dis cr et ion , w e m

ust a ddr es s w he the r O ff

ic er V as que z’ s pr ej udi ci al te sti m ony about 5 the purported confession could be cured by the instruction that the district court read 6 t o th e ju ry. 7 { 15} T he S ta te a rg ue s th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt r ea sona bly c onc lud ed

ac ur at ive 8 instructio n was suffic i ent to rem edy the single refer ence to D efendant’ s purported 9 co nf es sio n. T he S ta te c ont en ds tha t the r ec or d r ev ea ls s ev er al f ac tor s th at

m iti ga te 10 pot en tia l pre

j udi ce an d show a m istri al w as an ex tr em e, unw ar rante d m ea sur e. T he se 11 factors include t hat Of ficer Va squez’ s testim ony wa s not elicited bythe prosecutor, 12 O ff ic er V as que z’ s m iss ta te m en t oc curr ed e ar ly in the tr ia l, a nd the sub se que nt 13 te sti m ony

of A ge nt G om ez es ta

bli she d De fe ndant h ad

not a dm itt ed to dr ivi ng d

ur ing 14 the c oll isi on. A ddi tio na lly , the S ta te a rg ue s th at D ef en dant r et ai ne d the ab ili ty to 15 cr oss -e xa m ine O ff

ic er V as que z re gard ing the e rr one ous ba sis f or his state m en t bu t 1 6 ch ose n o tt o d o s o . W e d i s a g r e e w i t h th e S t a t e ’ s a s s e rt i o n th a tc e rt a i n m i t i g a t i ng 17 fa ct or s e xis te d to c ur e a m istri al a nd s ha ll ad dr es s the num er ous er ro rs m ad e by

the 18 district court when it ruled otherwise. 19 { 16} N um er ous ev ide nc e- ba se d fa ct or s suppor t De fe ndant’ s ar gum en t tha t the e rr or10

1 co u l dn o tb e c u re db y t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s i n s t ru ct i o n t o d i s re g ar dOf fi ce r V as qu ez ’s 2 pr ej udi ci al te sti m ony

about the pur

porte d conf

es sio n th at , in fa ct , w as e sta bli she d to 3 b e e rr o n e o u s p r i o r

t o tr i a l

. F i r s t , th e i s s u e o f w h o w a s d r i v i n g t h e P o n t i a c a tth e t i me 4 of the a cc ide nt, D ef

en dant o r G onz al es , w as th e m os t cri tic al iss ue in the c as e an d 5 hig hly dis put ed by the parti es . T he S ta te w as a w ar e of D ef en dant’ s c onsi ste nt 6 state m en ts tha t G onz al es w as the dr ive r at the tim e of the a cc ide nt. D ur ing it s op en ing 7 statem ent, the S tate m ade it cle ar that nobodysaw who w as driving th e vehicle, 8 De fendant said Gonzales was d riving, and the State int ended to prov e D efendant w as 9 in fa ct the dr ive r. Se co nd, G onz al es ’ s inc ulp at or y ac ts o f be ing the f

ir st p er son to e xit 10 the driver side of t he Pontiac and im m ediately flee the sce ne of the acc ident sup ported 11 D ef en dant’ s st at em en ts tha t G onz al es w as the driv er at the ti m e of the a cc ide nt. 12 Gonzales’ s subs equent death prior to tr ial com plicated the critical issue of who wa s 13 driving at the tim e of the accident. Third, at trial, the State’ s case e xclusiv ely relied 14 on cir cu m stanti al an d infe re nti al ev ide nc e to est ab lis h that D ef en dant, not

G onz al es , 15 w as dr ivi ng the Po nti ac at the tim e of the ac ci de nt. T his ev ide nti ar y ba ck gr ound

m ad e 16 the pur

porte d c onf

es sio n by D ef en dant t o A ge nt G om ez uni que ly pr ej udi ci al , 17 es pe ci al ly

und er the ci rc um stanc es w he re D ef en dant e sta

bli she d pr ior

to tr ia l tha t no 18 suc h c onf

es sio n oc curr ed

. 19 { 17} Our c ase lawacknowledges that “ generally , a prom pt adm oniti on . . . to the jury11

1 to disregard and not consider inadm issib le evi dence sufficiently cures any prej udicial 2 effe ct w hich m ight o therwise r esult.” Sta te v . A rm ijo , 201 4- N MC A -0 13, ¶ 9, 316 P

. 3d 3 902 (e m

pha sis , al te ratio ns, int er

na l quotatio n m ar

ks, an d c itatio n om itt ed ) (quot ing 4 Sta te v . Ne wm an , 1989 -N MC A -0 86, ¶ 19, 109 N

. M. 263 , 784 P

. 2d 1 006) ; se e Sta te 5 v. Shoemaker , 198 1- NMC A -1 51, ¶ ¶ 7, 9, 11- 13, 97 N

. M. 253 , 638 P

. 2d 1 098 6 (rec ogni zing that a curative instruction was su ff i ci ent to cure any

prej udice that 7 oc curr ed

w he n th e state a tte m

pte d to im

pe ac h th e de fe ndant w ith a pr ior ind ic tm en t 8 that di d not re sul t in a co nvi ct ion ). H ow ev er , one of the ex ce pti ons to this ge ne ra l r ule 9 ari se s wh en “ in ad m is si bl e te st im on y [is ] in t e n t io na ll y

eli ci te d b y

th e p ro se cu ti on .” 10 State v. G onza les , 20 00 -NMSC -0 28 , ¶ 39 , 12 9 N.M. 5 56 , 11 P.3d 13 1, ov errul ed on 11 oth er grou nds bySta te v . T ollardo , 2012 -N MSC- 008, ¶ 37 n. 6, 275 P.3d 110. In such 12 an instance, the gener al rule does not applyregar dless o f whether the district court 1 3 a d mo n i s h e s th e ju ry t o d i s r e g a r dth e i n a dmi s s i b l e t e s t i m on y . G onzales , 2000-NMS C14 028, ¶

39. O n r ev ie w , thi s C ourt “ m ust de te rm ine w he the r the re is a re as ona ble 1 5 p ro b ab i l i t y t h at th e i m p ro p er l y ad m i t t ed ev i d en ce co u l dh av e i n du ce dth e ju ry’s 16 verdict.” Id

. Ther efore, prior to determ ining whether a curative instructio n has cured 17 w hat othe rw ise w oul d be e rr or , w e m ust f ir st c onsi de r w he the r the ina dm iss ibl e 18 te st im on y

was i nt en ti on al ly elic it edby the Sta te

. See A rm ijo , 201 4- N MC A -0 13, ¶ 10.12

1 C. Offic er V asquez’ s Testim ony Was N ot Inten tionally Elicit ed by the State 2 { 18} Som e fa

ult c an be attributed to the prosecuto r in failing to follow the district 3 co urt’ s sp ec if

ic ins tr uc tio n to be “ care fu l wi th the que sti ons [t o O ff ic er V as que z] a nd 4 be r e a l sp e c i f

i c w i t h hi m . ” A l m os t i m

m e di a t e l y t he r e a f

t e r , the pr os e c ut or asked an 5 open-ended qu estion regarding Agent Gom ez’ s interview of De fendant at the police 6 station and Of

ficer Va squez’ s “ next step after tha t [.] ” Fr om a strictly

sequential 7 pe rs pe ct ive , thi s ne xt s te p is im portant t o our re vie w . T he S ta te w as a w ar e of the 8 “ next step” taken by Of ficer Va squez. This wa s the m om ent when O ffice r V asquez 9 erroneously

claim ed in his written report that Agent Gom ez cam e out of the interview 10 ro om a nd p ur porte dly tol d O ff ic er V as que z that D ef

en dant h ad

c onfess ed

to be ing 11 “ be hi nd th e whe el .” 12 { 19} Th e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r th e p r o s e c u t o r

i n t e n t i o n a l l y d i s re g ar d edth e d i s tri ctco urt ’s 13 dir ec t a dm oni shm en t to “ be c ar ef ul .

. . a nd .

. . spe ci fi c” a t this j unc tur e w he n th e 14 prosecutor imm ediately gave Officer Va squez the open-ended oppo rtunity to testify 15 about w hat in f

act happen next—Agent Gom ez allegedly telling O ffic er Va squez 16 ab out th e p ur

po rte d c on fes si on . Se e Sta te v . R uiz , 2003-NMC A- 069, ¶¶ 6-9, 133 N.M. 17 717, 68 P. 3 d 9 57 (recognizing that a prosecutor’s questioning can be considered 18 intentio nal when he w alked a key witness righ t i nto th e testim ony that had been 19 supp re sse d by a m oti on i n li m ine ); se e als o State v . Saa ve dra , 198 5- N MS C- 077, ¶ 9,13

1 103 N.M. 282, 705 P.2d 1133 (concluding that an im proper p rosecutorial m otive was 2 es ta bli she d w he n th e pr ose cu tor a ske d an id en tic al que sti on o f the sam e w itn es s a t a 3 gr an d ju ry

he ari ng an d rece iv edid en ti cal in ad m is si bl e an swe rs each ti m e), abro gated 4 on oth er grou n d

s by State v. B elanger , 200 9- N MS C- 025, 146 N

. M. 357 , 210 P

. 3d 5 783; Sta te v . V

ial pand o , 197 9- N MC A -0 83, ¶

23, 93 N

. M. 289 , 599 P

. 2d 1 086 6 (h old ing that a

c ur at ive ins tr

uc tio n w as onl y

pr ope r be ca

use “ the w itn es s’ s r es pons e 7 wa s totally

unexpected by

the co u rt and the attorney s”). In fac t, O ffice r V asquez 8 accurately

answer ed the prosecutor’ s questio n regarding the “ next step” that occurred 9 in the inv es tig at ion

. Jus t l ike the pr ose cu tor in R uiz , the p r os e c ut or

w a l ke d O f

f i c er 10 Va squez right to the key confession testim ony that had been supp ressed prior to trial 11 an d gave him

a n op en -e nde d qu es tio n th at , onc e an sw er ed c or re ct ly , sol ic ite d th e 12 supp re sse d e vid en ce. See 2003 -N MCA -069, ¶ 7. Like R uiz , the re is no r ec or d on 13 appeal regar ding what the prosecutor w as expecting as the answer to the questio n at 14 is su e o n t hi s ap pe al

. Se e id. How ever, the district court’ s curative instruction in cluded 15 specifi c l ang ua ge s t at i ng tha t O f f i c e r V a sq ue z ’ s t e st im ony

wa s non-respon sive. Ba sed 16 uponthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c ur at ive ins tr uc tio n, thi s C ourt c anonl y inf er that the 17 pr ose cu tor

e xpe ct ed O ff ic er V as que z to m ove on t o othe r as pe ct s of the inv es tig at ion 18 and avoid any violatio n of t he pretrial order and subs equent adm onish m ents issu ed 19 by the dis tr ic t c ourt. “ Whe re the re is a doub tf ul or de fi ci en t r ec or d, e ve ry

pr es um pti on14

1 m ust be ind ulg ed by the re vie w ing co urt i n f av or of the c or re ctne ss and r eg ulari ty

of 2 the [district] court’ s judgm ent.” Sta te v . R ojo , 1999 -N MS C- 001, ¶ 53, 126 N

. M. 438 , 3 971 P. 2d 8 29 ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T his pr es umpt io n of 4 co rr ec tne ss c an not

be dis re gard ed in thi s ins tanc e. D es pit e w al kin g th e w itn es s r igh t 5 to the line of the supp ressed t estim ony , this Court can reasonablyrely on the dist rict 6 co urt’ s de te rm inatio n and w e ar e suf fi ci en tly pe rs ua de d th at

the pr ose cu tor

did not 7 in te nt io na ll y

so li ci t Offi cer Vas qu ez’s t es ti m on y ab ou t th e p ur po rte d c on fes si on . See 8 R uiz , 200 3- N MC A -0 69, ¶ 7; see also Gonzales , 2 0 0 0

- N M S C

- 0 2 8 , ¶ 3 9 ( ap p l yi n g “a 9 differe nt analy sis to in adm issib le testim ony i ntentio nally

elicited by

the prosecution). 10 D . Th e P ur po rt ed C on fe ssi on Er ro r Was N ot Ha rm le ss 11 { 20} Ne xt, w e address w hether O ffice r V asquez’s testim ony about the pu rported 12 co nf es si on c anbe ove rc om e by the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c ur at ive ins tr uc tio n or c oul d 13 oth er w ise be c onsi de re d harm le ss er ro r. Whe n a non- co nst itu tio na l e vid en tiary e rr or 14 oc curs , the harm le ss e rr or st andard of r ev ie wonl y

r equir es r ev er sa l i f the re is a 1 5 “ re as o n ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y” t h e i n ad m i s s i b l e e v i d en ce co n t ri b u t ed t o De fe n d an t ’s 16 co nv ic ti on . Se e Sta te v . L ey ba , 201 2 -N M SC -037, ¶ 24, 289 P.3d 121 5 (internal 17 quot at ionm ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). U nde r thi s standard of r ev ie w , ac as e- by -c as e 18 an al y si s i s re qu ire d. Se e To lla rdo , 201 2- N MS C- 00 8, ¶ 44

. Re vie w ing c ourts are to 19 ev al ua te a ll of the ci rc um stanc es sur ro undi ng the er

ro r, inc lud ing ex am ini ng the e rr or15

1 itself, the source o f the er ror, the em

phasis o n the error, and whether the error wa s 2 cu m ul at iv e o r in tro du cedne w fact s. Id

. ¶ 43. E vid en ce of gui lt se parate f ro m the e rr or 3 m ay be r el ev an t bu t m ay

not be the sin gul ar fo cu s inde te rm ini ng whe the r the tr ie r of 4 fact was i nf

lu en cedby the erro r. Id

. 5 { 21} Inthe ins tant ca se , the er ro r cr eate d by O ff

ic er V as que z’ s te sti m ony

r eg ar din g 6 the pur porte d co nf

es sio n w as not harm le ss an d w as pr ope r gr ound s f or r ev er sa l and 7 a n ew tr ia l. S

e e St a t e v . M

c Cl a u ghe rty , 2003 -N MSC- 006, ¶¶ 27, 32-35, 133 N.M. 8 459, 64 P. 3d 486 (r ec ogni zi ng the im pr ope rl y adm itt ed he ar say state m en ts tha t w en t 9 to a critical and highly dispu ted issue at trial we re not harm less and war ranted a new 10 tri al ), ov errul ed

on o the r gro unds byT

ollardo , 2012-NMS C-008, ¶ 37 n.6. T his Court 11 has explained th at “ confessions can prej udice ‘ the j ury ’ s think ing on certain issu es 12 which it m ight o therwise h av e b ee n able to decide objec tively .’ ” Sta te v . H ardy , 13 2012 -N MC A -0 05, ¶

10, 268 P

. 3d 1 278 (quot ing P roof of the Co rpus D el ic ti A liu nde 14 the D ef

en dant ’s Co nfessi on , 103 U

. P a. L

. Re v. 638 , 677 (1 955) ). T hus, a co nf es sio n 15 can be hig hly

pr ej udi ci al a nd w ar

rants ac los e ex am inatio n of the c ir cu m stanc es . 16 H er e, the c onf

es sio n O ff

ic er V as que z w ro ngl y

r ef er en ce d stru ck

a t the crux of

the 17 de fe nse of

fe re d a t tri al —D ef

en dant w as n ot the dr ive r at the ti m e of

the c oll isi on. 18 O ff ic er V as que z’ s te sti m ony cl ai m ing that a co nf es sio n oc curr ed , w he n it

ne ve r did , 19 not onl y und er m ine d D ef

en dant’ s ov er al l cred ibi lity but pr ovi de d e rr one ous16

1 corroboration for the State’ s circum stantial evidence regarding who it cl ai m ed wa s 2 dr ivi ng at the ti m e of

the a cc ide nt. 3 { 22} Furthe rm or e, O ff ic er V as que z’ s te sti m ony re gard ing the pur porte d c onf

es sio n 4 occurred on the af

t er n o o n o f th e first day

of trial. The fact that a

witness m ade an 5 im pr ope r re fe re nc e to a

c onf es sio n so e ar ly

in the c our se of

trial can be dif

fi cu lt to 6 ov erco m e. See State v. Gutierrez , 2007 -N MS C- 033, ¶ 23, 142 N

. M. 1, 162 P

. 3d 1 56 7 (concluding that a prej udicial c o mm ent m ade in opening statem ent “ particularly at 8 this stag e, is inherently difficult to overcom e”). In addition, a ft er Of ficer Va squez 9 mad e th e i n ap p r o p r i a t e c o mm e n t , th e d i s t r i c tc o u rti mm e d i a t e l y e x c u s e dth e ju ry, 10 w ith out

pr ovi din g any

sor t of ins tr uc tio n, w hil e the attor

ne y s arg ue d f

or or a ga ins t a 1 1 m is tr i a l

. A c c o r d i n g t o th e r e c o r d , th e j u r y w a s e x c u s e df

o r ap p r o x i m a t e l y

nin e 12 m inutes, which is am

ple tim e for the refe rence to a confession to take root and fester 13 in the jurors’ m inds. Only after the j ury returned was the curative instruction o ffer ed 14 in an a tte m

pt t o re m edy

the ina ppr opr ia te te sti m ony

about the pur porte d c onf

es sio n. 15 E. The D istrict C ourt’ s Cur ative Instruc tion Was Insuffic ient 16 { 23} The district court’ s curative in struction wa s vague and inaccurate. The district 17 co urt i nstru ct ed

the j ur y a s f oll ow s: 18 L ad ie s and g en tle m en , the re w as a n un re spon siv e state m en t m ad e by 19 [O ff

ic er V as que z] c onc er

nin g ac onf

es sio n, the re w as a n ob

j ec tio n to 20 that statem ent . I have sustained th e obje ction and will strike that 21 statem ent from the rec ord and the jury

is instructed to d isregard that17

1 statem ent and to no t consider it for any purpose. 2 { 24} This instruction wa s not accurate in tw o respects. Fi rs t , a s discuss ed above, 3 O ff ic er V as que z’ s st at em en t w as in fa ct r es pon si ve to the pr ose cu tor ’ s qu es tio n of 4 w ha t the of

fi ce r did ne xt. O ff

ic er V as que z ac curate ly

a nsw er ed

the pr ose cu tor

w ith 5 the ne xt s eque nti al a ct in his inv es tig at ion

—m ee tin g A ge nt Go m ez outsi de the 6 i n t erro g at i o n ro o m

an dad d re s s i n g wh at wa s o b t a i n ed du ri n g De fe n d an t ’s 7 interrogation. Secondly , the district court inaccurately ref erence d an objection that 8 was su sta ine d—a

te ch nic al e rr or

that w as pr oc ed

ur al ly inc or re ct a nd f ac tua lly 9 co n tra ry t o wh atac tu al l y o cc u rr ed o n th e r ec o rd . I m m ed i at el y a ft erOf

fi ce r V as qu ez ’s 10 co nf es sio n st at em en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt su a spon te e xc use d th e j ur y pr ior to an y 11 obj ec tio n or

a ny oth er state m en t by

de fe nse c ouns el

. E ve n on ce the j ur y w as e xc use d, 12 D ef en dant d id n ot o bj ec t t o th e al le ge d c onf es sio n t es ti m ony

but ve ry spe ci fi ca lly 13 m ove d f

or m istri al , a nd the m oti on f or m istri al i s what the part ie s arg ue d w hil e the 14 j ur y w as e xc use d. T he dis tr ic t c ourt deni ed the m oti on for m istri al an d dec ide d to use 15 its curative instruction to the jury . T herefor e, two s u b s t antive inaccuracies w ere 16 pr es en te d to the j ur

y in the langua ge of

the c ourt’ s c ur at ive ins tr uc tio n. 17 { 25} Even if this instruction attem pted to accurately

cure the e rror m ade by

Of ficer 18 V as que z, it

w as a lso va gue w he n it

inf orm ed the jury of it s du ty

to dis re gard

the 19 im pr op er co m

m en t. Se e Sta te v . G arc ia , 199 4- N MC A -1 47, ¶ 17, 118 N

. M. 773 , 88718

1 P. 2d 7 67. T el lin g th e j ur y to dis re gard

the “ unr es pons ive state m en t m ad e by the 2 officer concerning a confession” does not inform the j ury that the reason to disregard 3 the statem ent concerning a confession was, in fact, because no conf es s i o n ever 4 oc curr ed

. T he f

ac t th at a co nf

es sio n ne ve r oc curr ed

w as c ri tic al inf

orm at ionw ith 5 re gard to the pr ej udi ce inj ec te d in to the tr ia l. A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt m ay have 6 deliberately

m ade the curative instructio n vague to avoi d further em phasis o f O ffice r 7 V as que z’ s im

pr ope r re fe re nc e to the pur porte d c onf

es sio n, r ef

er en ci ng an ob

j ec tio n 8 that never occurre d a n d fa iling to address the fact that no confession ever occurre d 9 was als o e rro r. Se e id

. (s ta tin g th at “ [i ] nde ed , the va gue ne ss w as pr oba bly int en tio na l, 10 because any

direct com

m ent on [the error] posed the risk of em phasizing the m atter 11 to the j ur

y ”) ; se e a l

so G ut i e rre

z , 2 007- N MS C- 033, ¶

23 ( hol din g th at

ava gue 12 ins tr u c tio n w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o c ur e pr ej udi ce ); State v. M iller , 196 6- N MS C- 041, ¶

32, 13 76 N

. M. 62, 412 P

. 2d 2 40 ( hol din g th at astatut or

y c ur ativ e in st ru ctionw oul d no t 14 suf fi ci en tly r em ove the im

pr ope r im pr es sio n cr eate d by

apr ose cu tor ’ s in ap pr opr ia te 15 com m ents regarding the defendant’ s failure to testify ). W e re cognize that the dist rict 16 court wa s attem

pting to a ddress a critical and prej udicial e rror. Should it tell the j ury 17 the tr utha nd re -e m

pha siz e the se ri ous pr ej udi ce that O ff ic er V as que z ha d c re at ed

or 18 shou ld it hid e the true nature of the err or b y m isrepresenting the procedural 19 circum stances that required a c urative instruction , a s well as the true err oneous nature19

1 of the pur porte d c onf

es sio n? T he se una cc ep ta ble c hoi ce s r eg ar din g a cc ur ac y a nd 2 vagu en es s o n l y

reinforc e w hy

De fendant’ s m otion for a m istrial shou ld have been 3 gr an te d and c oul d not be c ur ed by the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ff

orts t o us e a curativ e 4 ins tr uc tio n. 5 { 26} Fo r the f

or eg oing reas on s, w e ar e pe rs ua de d th at the re w as ar ea sona

ble 6 pr oba bil ity the pur

porte d c onf

es sio n and i nsuf

fi ci en t c ur at ive ins tr

uc tio n se ve re ly 7 pr ej udi ce d the j ur

y ’ s thi nki ng an d co ntr ibu te d to D ef en dant’ s co nvi ct ion

. I n a ddi tio n, 8 a r ea s o n ab l e i n fe re n ce ca n b e d ra wn fr o m t h e ci rc u m s t an ce s t h at Of fi ce r V as qu ez ’s 9 te sti m ony

w as not a cc ide nta l. Be ca

use the r es ult in g curativ e ins tr uc tio n w as va gue 10 an d in ac curate , w e co nc lud e tha t the ins tr uc tio n wa s insuf

fi ci en t i n th is c as e, a nd the 11 district court abused its discretion wh en i t failed to grant De fendant’ s m otion for a 12 m istri al

. 13 II. No P rosecutorial M isconduct 14 { 27} W e nex t cons ide r w he the r pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct oc curr ed suc h th at double 15 j eopardy

bars D efendant’ s retrial. Prosecutorial m iscondu ct o ccurs when 1 6 p ro s ec u t o ri al “ i m

p ro p ri et i es h ad s u ch a p er s u as i v e a n dp re ju d i ci al ef

fe ct o n th e ju ry’s 17 verdict that the defendant wa s deprived of a fair trial. ” Sta te v . D uff

y , 1998-NMS C18 01 4, ¶ 4 6, 1 26 N.M. 13 2, 9 67 P.2d 80 7, ov erruled on o the r gr ound

s by To lla rdo , 19 2012 -N MS C- 008, ¶ 37 n. 6. In ins tanc es of ex tr em e pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct , double20

1 jeop ard y

m ay ba r a ne w tri al

. Se e Sta te v . B re it , 199 6- N MS C- 067, ¶ 2, 122 N

. M. 655 , 2 930 P.2d 792 . Und er Ar ticle II, Sec tion 1 5 of the Ne w Me xico Const itutio n, re trial 3 is b ar re d w he re ( 1) th e of

fi ci al m isc ondu ct

is so p re j udi ci al that no thi ng s hort of 4 m ist ri a l w i l l c u r e i t ; ( 2 ) “ t h e o f f i c i a l kn o w s th a tth e c o n du c ti s i m p r o p e r a nd 5 pr ej udi ci al [; ] ” an d ( 3) “ the of fi ci al e ith er

int en ds t o pr ovok e a m istri al or a ct s in 6 willful disregard of the r es u l t i ng m istrial, r etrial, or rever sal.” B re it , 1996-NMS C7 067, ¶ 32. “ When the prosecutor does not intend to provok e a m istrial, the m iscondu ct 8 ne ces sa ry to ba r a ret ria l m us t b e ex tra or di na ry .” State v. H aynes , 200 0- N MC A -0 60, 9 ¶ 6, 129 N.M. 304, 6 P. 3d 1 0 2 6 (i n t ernal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 10 D es pit e w al kin g aw itn es s r igh t to the ans w er that w as the pr ope r ba sis f or m istri al , 11 thi s C ourt ha s pr ev iou sly r ec ogni ze d th at

r em an d f or a newtr ia l i s th e ap pr opr ia te 12 r e med y f

orsu ch an in te nt io na l ac t b y a pr os ecu to r. Se e R uiz , 200 3- N MC A -0 69, 13 ¶¶ 11- 12. 14 { 28} De fe n d an t argues that Of ficer Va squez is also part of the prosecution team 15 when analy zing prosecutorial m iscondu ct that bars retrial. De fendant poin ts out th at 16 the St at e w as tw ic e pla ce d on ex pli ci t no tic e that t es tim ony of ac onf es sio n r isk ed

a 17 m istri al

. A lth oughD ef en dant sp eci fi ca lly

r ec ogni ze s th at

no a uth or ity e xte nds the 18 doub le j eopardy

analy sis regarding prosecuto rial m iscondu ct to testify ing m em bers 19 of the pr ose cu tio n te am , he a sks thi s Court to rec ogni ze suc h an e xte nsi on. T he S ta te21

1 in response hi ghlig hts that no doub le j eopardy authority extends the pr o s ec utorial 2 m iscondu ct analy sis to testi fy ing m em bers of the prosecution team

. The State argues 3 that Off

icer V asquez’ s testim ony wa s an unso licited, non-responsiv e com m ent that 4 shou ld not be attributed to the prosecuto r. 5 { 29} W e agre e w ith the State that, for doub le j eopardy purpos es, N ewMexico does 6 not extend a prosecutorial m iscondu ct analy sis to witnesses. While police officers are 7 m em bers of the prosecution team for the purposes of disclosu re of e xculpatory 8 ev id en ce, State v. W

isniewski , 1985 -N MS C- 079, ¶ 21, 103 N

. M. 430 , 708 P

. 2d 1 031, 9 thi s C ourt ha s r ej ec te d th e co nc ep t’ s e xte ns ionto anof fi ce r’ s c om

m en ts o n a 10 de fen da nt ’s c on st it ut io na l rig ht to rem ai n s il en t. Se e Sta te v . H erre ra , 20 14 -NMCA11 007, ¶ 22, 315 P. 3d 343. W e ar e not pe rs ua de d by D ef en dant’ s arg um en ts t o e xte nd 1 2 t h e d o ub l e je o p ar d y p ro t ec t i o n ag ai n s t p r o s e cu t o ri al m i s co n du ct t o th e S t at e’s 13 witnesses who inj ect prec luded testim ony into th e trial. In addition, Def endant failed 14 to provid e us with an evidentiary basis c learly attributing Of ficer Va squez’ s im

proper 15 co nd uc t t o t he in te nt io ns of t he pro se cu to r. See B re it , 1 9 9 6 -NMSC-067, ¶ 2 16 (rec ogni zing that inherent in the bar on r etrial is the prosecutor’ s intent to provoke a 17 m ist ri al ); Haynes , 200 0- N MC A -0 60, ¶ 6 ( re co gni zi ng tha t the m isc ondu ct m ust be 18 ex tr ao rd inary w he n the pr ose cu tor doe s not inte nd to pr ovok e a m istri al ). H er e, the 19 prosecutor m i s t ak enly asked Of

ficer Va squez an open-ended qu estion, “ what w as22

1 y our ne xt s te p a ft er

that i n y our

inv es tig at ion ? ” Office r V as que z uti liz ed thi s 2 oppo rtunity

to im properly testify about the pu rported confession th at had been 3 supp re sse d. A s w e pr ev io us ly disc uss ed , the pr es um pti on o f co rr ec tne ss and 4 re as ona

ble inf er en ce s th at

c an be dr awn f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c ur at ive ins tr uc tio n 5 ar e suf fi ci en t t o pe rs ua de us that the pr ose cu tor did not int en tio na lly

e lic it te sti m ony 6 about the purported confessio n that had been sup pressed. Absent a sufficient recor d 7 to establish this int ent elem ent for p ro s ec utorial m iscondu ct, doub le j eopardy does 8 not bar a re tr ia l of

D ef en dant. 9 III . Su ff

ic ie nc y of

t he Ev id en ce t o Ju st if

y R et ri al 10 { 30} Finally , w e consider whether the State put forth sufficient evidence to con vict 11 Defen da nt of t he ch arg es an d ju st ify a seco nd tri al

. Sta te v . Co nsau l , 2014-NMS C12 030, ¶

41, 332 P

. 3d 8 50 ( not ing w el l- es ta bli she d pr ec ed en t th at “ [t]o av oid a ny 13 doub le j eo pardy

c onc er ns, w e re vie wth e ev ide nc e pr es en te d a t the f ir st tri al to 14 de te rm ine whe the r it w as suf fi ci en t t o w ar

rant a se co nd tri al ”)

. I n r ev ie w ing the 15 suf fi ci en cy of th e evide nc e, thi s C ourt “ vie w [s ] the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost 16 favor ab le to the gui lty ve rd ic t, ind

ulg ing al l r ea sona

ble inf er en ce s and r es olv ing a ll 17 conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” Sta te v . Cu nni ngha m , 2000-NMS C18 00 9, ¶ 2 6, 1 28 N.M. 71 1, 9 98 P.2d 17 6. 19 { 31} De fendant argues that the State fa iled to prove bey ond a reasonable doub t that23

1 D ef en dant was act ually

dr ivi ng the c ar

a t the ti m e of

the c oll isi on, part ic ularl y 2 because G onzales’ s own conduct im plicates him as the driver. De fendant asserts that 3 the r em ai nin g e vid en ce onl y pr ove s the m er e poss ibi lity that D ef en dant dro ve a nd i s 4 t h u s i n s u f

f i c i e n tt o o v e r c o me t h e i n f e r e n c e t h a t G o n z a l e s w a s dr i v i n g . Ad d i t i o n a l l y, 5 D ef en dant arg ue s ther e w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

r ec kle ssn es s. W e dis ag re e w ith 6 D ef en dant. A s th is C ourt m

ust vie wthe e vid en ce in th e lig ht m ost f av or ab le to the 7 State, disregarding contrary evidence and inference s, w e conclude that t here w as 8 su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt De fen da nt ’s con vi ct io ns . Se e id

. 9 { 32} A r at ion al j ur

y co uld have f ound be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t D ef

en dant 10 w as the dr ive r of

the Po nti ac at the tim e of the co lli sio n. T he re w er e tw o pe opl e ins ide 11 the Pontiac at the tim e of the collision, De fendant and Gonzales. Nobody directly saw 12 who was dr iving at the ti m e of the a cc ide nt, a nd D ef

en dant c onsi ste ntl y

tol d 13 w itn es se s an d the inv es tig at ing of fi ce rs that G onz al es w as the dr ive r. T he j ur y thu s 14 ha d to inf

er , f ro m the e vid en ce , w hic h pe rs on i nsi de the P ont ia c w as dr ivi ng. Be ca use 15 the j ur y w as f re e to r ej ec t D ef

en dant’ s ve rs ion of the fa ct s, the c ontrary e vid en ce a nd 16 inference s did prov ide a sufficient fa ctual basis for the j ury to determ ine that 17 Defen da nt was t he d riv er at th e ti m e o f th e acc id en t. Se e Sta te v . A sto rga , 201 5- 18 N MS C- 007, ¶

57, 343 P

. 3d 1 245. T his e vid en ce inc lud es inc onsi ste nt s ta te m en ts 19 from De fend an t as t o whether and when Gonzales sw itched to becom e the driver.24

1 E vid en ce w as a lso pr es en te d sh ow ing that De fe ndant w as obs er ve d w ithinj ur ie s on 2 the left side o f h i s b o dy , and the State’ s expert testim ony opined th at these injur ies 3 w oul d be c onsi st en t wit h Defe ndant b ei ng i n th e dr ive r’ s se at a t the ti m e of

the 4 ac ci de nt. T he D N A e vid en ce take n fr om the ve hic le af te r the ac ci de nt w as ne ga tiv e 5 fo r G onz al es on the dr iv er’s s ide of the P ont ia c an d ne ga tiv e fo r D ef en dant o n th e 6 pa sse nge r’ s sid e of

the ve hic le

. I n a ddi tio n, w he n D ef en dant w as audi o ta

pe d w hil e 7 ta lki ng t o avis ito r at

the j ai l, he w as he ar d us in g th e first p er son to d es cr ibe his 8 ac tio ns d

ur ing the a cc ide nt, thu s a lso im ply ing that he w as the dr ive r. V ie w ing a ll the 9 circum stantial evidence in the lig ht m ost favorable to the State, sufficient evidence 10 wa s presented at trial to convict Defe ndant of the ho m icide by vehicle and great 11 bodi ly harm by ve hic le c harg es . 12 { 33} A s t o th e suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce r eg ar din g r ec kle ss dri vin g and the e le m en t 13 of r ec kle ssn es s, the fa ct s of the co lli sio n as we ll as tr ia l tes tim ony pr ovi de suf

fi ci en t 14 ev ide nc e to c onc lud e that the dr ive r of the P ont ia c sh owe d a“ w ill fu l or w an ton 15 dis re gard

of the r igh ts o r sa fe ty

of oth er s. ” Se ct ion66- 8- 113( A ). W itha nothe r ve hic le 16 ap pr oa ch ing on a m aj or int er state at hig hw ay spe ed s, the dr ive r of

the P ont ia c slo w ly 17 cu t a cr oss a ll la ne s of tr av el in a ne ar ly

hor iz ont al dir ec tio n, c au sin g th e Po nti ac to 18 co lli de w iththe S m ith s’ S uz uki

. I n a ddi tio n, apo lice of fi ce r te sti fi ed

that the 19 Po nt ia c’ s dr ive r w as “ re ck le ss” w he n m ak ing thi s m an eu ve r an d us ed thi s pr ec ise25

1 language. T hus, a rational jury could have also foun d bey ond a reasonable d oubt that 2 the Pontiac driver w as rec kless. Based on the foregoing, sufficient evidence w as 3 pr es en te d to sup port the r ec kle ssn es s e le m en t of D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s. 4 IV . D ef

en da nt ’s R em ain in g C lai m s of Er ro r 5 { 34} A s ar es ult

of our r ev er sa l and r em an d f

or ane wtr ia l, w e de te rm ine that i t i s 6 unne ce ssary

f or thi s C ourt t o a ddr es s any of D ef en dant’ s r em ai nin g a sse rt ion s of 7 erro r. Se e Sta te v . V

all ej os , 199 4- N MS C- 107, ¶ 13, 118 N

. M. 572 , 883 P

. 2d 1 269. 8 CON CLU SION 9 { 35} Fo r the r ea sons state d in thi s op ini on, w e re ve rs e D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s f

or 10 hom ic ide by

ve hic le , gr eat bo dil y

harm by ve hic le , an d r ec kle ss d ri vin g. W e re m an d 11 fo r a ne wtr ia l c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. 12 { 36} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 13

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 14 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e 15 WE CO NCUR:

16

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 17 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e

18

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 19 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e