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: F eb ru ar

y 14, 201 7 4 N O. 34, 375 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO , 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 N O E J I M E N E Z, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF DO ÑAAN A C OUN TY 11 F er na nd o R . M ac ias , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Jane A. Ber

nstein, 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 Allison H. Jaram illo, Assistant Appellate D efender 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 HAN ISEE, Judge. 3 { 1} De fendant, a self-re presented litigant who was assisted by standbycounsel at 4 tri al, w as c harg ed

w itha nd c onvi ct ed

of be ing af el on i n po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m in 5 vio la tio n of

N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 30 -7 -1 6 ( 2001 ), a nd r es ist ing , e va din g, or 6 obstructin g a n o ff

i cer in vio lation of NMSA1978 , S ection 30-22 -1(B) (1981). 7 De fendant appeals both co n v i ctions and p roffe rs m yriad argum ents to su pport 8 reversa l. H e a ss e rt s: ( 1) h i s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r i gh tu nd e r

t he U ni t e d S t a t es 9 Co nst itu tio n to c onf

ro nt w itn es se s w as vio la te d, (2) the S ta te f ai le d to pr es en t 10 suff i c i e nt e vi de nc e t o su st a i n hi s c on vi c t i on s, ( 3) t he d i str i c tc ourtc om m i tted 11 fundam en ta l er

ro r w he n it

f ai le d to pr ope rl y

ins tr uc t the j ur

y on the r el ev an t l awf

or 12 co nstru ct ive pos se ssi on, ( 4) the dis tri ct c ourt e rr ed w he n it a llo w ed the S ta te to 13 i n t ro duce evidence of D efendant’ s pendin g civil lawsuit against th e City of L as 14 Cr uc es , a nd ( 5) the S ta te c om m itt ed pr ose cu tor ia l m iscon duc t. W e af fi rm in part , 15 re ve rs e in p ar

t, a nd r em an d f

or r es en te nc ing in ac co rd an ce w iththi s op ini on. 16 BACKGRO UND 17 { 2} On Fe bruary

25, 2012, De fendant we nt to th e A rid Club in Las Cr uces, N ew 18 Mexico. T he Ar id Club is a place wher e A lcoholi cs Anonym ous an d Nar cotics 19 A nony

m ous m ee tin gs are he ld. D ef en dant w as a m em

be r of the A ri d C lub a nd w en t2

1 to the club th at day

because he w as having a bad day and wanted to talk to som eone. 2 D ef en dant d onne d abla ck

bandana , abla ck

shi rt , A rm

y pants , bik er

boo ts, a nd a 3 bul le tpr oof

ve st whic h w as w or

n un de rn eath his shir

t. A cc or din g to D ef

en dant, thi s 4 w as his nor

m al a tti re e xc ep t f

or the bul le tpr oof ve st, w hic h he wo re that day be ca use 5 he fel t h is li fe was in da ng er. Defe nd an t was als o c arrying nu nc hu ck s. 6 { 3} Only

three people w ere at the A rid Club when D efendant arri v ed . O ne wa s 7 B r a n d o n C h a n d l e r , av o l u n t e e r a tt h e c l ub w h o wa s r

u n n i n g t h e s n a c kb a r

t h a td a y. 8 Another w as som eone who identified him self to police as Chandler’ s case m anager. 9 T he thi rd

pe rs on w as ne ve r ident ifi ed in the r ec or d. A t so m e poi nt a ft er D ef en dant 10 had entered the A rid Club, the La s Cruces Police De partm ent responded to a ca ll at 11 the club. It is un clear exactly who called the po lice, what w as reported, and to what 12 kin d of

inc ide nt p oli ce be lie ve d th ey w er e re spon din g. 13 { 4} Wa l l a c e D o w n s , ad e t e c t i v e w i t h t h e L a s C r u c e s P o l i c e D e p a rt me n ta tt h e t i me 14 of the inc ide nt, te sti fi ed

a t tri al that he we nt t o th e A ri d C lub in re spon se to a ca ll 15 from another officer , S ergeant Ronnie Navarrete , who had been “ flagged down” at 16 the c lub

. A ft er

br ie fl y spe ak ing w ithS er ge an t N av ar re te , w ho did not te sti fy at tr ia l, 17 De tective Dow ns began in terview ing peop le at the scene to try to determ ine if there 18 w er e an y

w itn es se s w ho cou ld des cr ibe w ha t wa s going on insi de the c lub

. D et ec tiv e 19 Dow ns spo ke with the person who identified him self as Chandler’ s case m anager.18 The S tate called C handler t o t es tify at trial; howe ver, Chandler w as an 1 19 unc oope rativ e w itn es s and inf orm ed the j ur

y tha t he subsc ri be d to the “ co de ” that e x20 co nvi ct s, li ke him se lf , do n ot t es tif

y in cr im ina l c as es . 3 1 T he ca se m an ag er sa id he ha d a phon e num be r fo r Ch an dle r, w ith w ho m Dete ctive 2 D ow ns w as the n a

ble to m ak e te le phon ic c ont ac t. 3 { 5} Ac cording to Detective D owns, C handler “ wa s talking very low as if h e w ere 4 scared or concerned. ” T here w as conflicting testim ony regar ding whether

Chandler 5 wa s being held against his will insi de the Ar id C lub, but Detective D owns testified 6 that C handl er

tol d hi m that the re w as a pe rs on ins ide w ith a gun an d th at he did not 7 thinkhe could leave. D efendant testified that Chandler wa s free to leave at any tim e. 8 E ve ry one a gr ee d th at onc e Ch an dle r ga ve D ef en dant the phon e an d D et ec tiv e D ow ns 9 as ke d D ef

en dant t o le t C handl er

le av e the cl ub, Ch an dle r w al ke d out wi thi n m inu te s. 1 10 { 6} D et ec tiv e D ow ns s pe nt a ppr oxi m at el y

one hour on the pho ne w ithD ef en dant, 11 first buildin g a rapport with him and then asking that De fendant surrender to police. 12 Defen d a n t s t a t e d t h a t he was a rm edwit h a gu n, d idno t wan t t o “ go on . . . li vi ng ,” 13 an d w an te d to ha ve the pol ic e shoo t him

. D et ec tiv e D ow ns re que ste d at lea st thr ee to 14 fi ve ti m es that D ef

en dant p ut d ow n hi s weap on an d c om e out w ithhis hands up t o 15 surrender to police. De tective Dow ns r ecalled that Def endant agreed to surrender a 16 co upl e of

ti m es but ne ve r did

. E ve ntu al ly , the c al l e nde d be ca use the ba tte ry

in the 17 phon e D ef

en dant w as usi ng d ie d.4

1 { 7} So on aft er, a t act ic al te am th atha d a ss em

bl edon sce ne , con si st in g o f SWAT 2 of fi ce rs an d aK -9 uni t, e nte re d th e A ri d C lub a nd a ppr eh en de d D ef

en dant. A cc or din g 3 to J oshu a Sava ge , a n of fi ce r as sig ne d to the L as Cr uc es P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t’ s K -9 uni t, 4 D ef en dant did not im

m ed ia te ly sur

re nde r, an d appl ic at ionof f or ce w as ne ce ssary

to 5 b r i n g h i m i n t o c u s t o d y. 6 { 8} Fo llo w ing D efen da nt ’ s arr es t, pol ic e se ar ch ed the A ri d C lub a nd o bta ine d a 7 search w arrant for the car that De fendant drove ther e. In s i de the club, police 8 recovere d a gun that cont ained six bu llets, tw o of which w ere live rounds , and a bullet 9 on the fl oor . A nothe r fo rty -f ive ro unds of am

m uni tio n w er e loc at ed in a ba g found 10 ins ide the ve hic le dr ive n by D ef en dant. 11 { 9} De fendant appeals both counts of conv iction. Additional facts are providedas 12 ne ce ssary

to our dis cu ssi on. 13 DISC US SION 14 { 10} Fi rs twe t ak e u p t h e a m m u n i t i o n ’s ad m i s s i b i l i t y, wh i ch h i n g es o n De fe n d an t ’s 15 Confrontation Clause ar gum ent, then discuss whether there wa s sufficient evidence 16 to sup port Def

endant’ s convictio ns. N ext, w e address w hether the district court erre d 17 in i nstru ct ing the j ur

y an d all ow ing ev ide nc e of D ef en dant’ s pe ndi ng l aw sui t a ga ins t 18 the City

of L as Cruce s before turning t o Def endant’ s claim

of prosecutorial 19 m isc ondu ct

.5

1 I. Th e Tr ial C ourt Did N ot V iol at e D ef en da nt ’s R igh t of

C on fr on ta ti on 2 When it A dm itted Ev i de nce Seize d F rom De fend ant’s C ar Without 3 De fend ant Having an Opp ortunit y to Co n f r on tt h e O f

f i c e r s W h o P r e pared 4 and Execu ted the Search Warrant 5 { 11} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

his Sixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o be c onf ro nte d w iththe 6 witnesses against him

wa s violated when the State prese nte d phy sical evidence seized 7 fr o m h i s ca r w i t h o u tca l l i n g ce rt ai n wi t n es s es . Th e c en t ra l t h ru s to f D ef en d an t ’s 8 argum ent on appeal is that he had the right to confront officer s that searched his car 9 an d th e of

fi ce r tha t arr es te d hi m . Abse nt s uc h op portun ity , D ef en dant c ont en ds, the 1 0 dis tr ic tc o u rte rr e db y d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o s up p r e s s e v i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g t he 11 am m uni tio n r ec ove re d f

ro m his c ar . D ef

en da nt also m ak es ape rf unc tor y a rg um en t 12 that his r igh t of

c onf ro nta tio n w as vio la te d be ca use the of

fi ce r w ho p re pare d th e 13 se ar chw ar

rant f or his c ar w as not pr es en t a t tri al

. D ef en dant m isunde rs tands the 14 scope of the Confrontation Clause, and we take this opp ortunityto address evidence 1 5 a n dt e s t i mo n y t o wh i c h i td o e s n o tap p l y. 16 { 12} T he S ixth A m en dm en t’ s C onf ro nta tio n C lause e nti tle s ac ri m ina l de fe ndant t o 17 “ be confronted with the witnesses against him [. ] ” U. S. Const. am end. V I. Challenges 18 under the Confrontation Clause m ust be resolved as a m atter of law, which w e re view 19 de no vo . Se e Sta te v . H ue ttl , 201 3- N MC A -0 38, ¶ 16, 305 P

. 3d 9 56. 20 T he Co nf

ro ntati on Cla

use “ pr ohi bit s th e intro duc tio n of te sti m oni al he ar say

unl es s 21 the accused has had the oppo rtunity to c ross-exam ine the d ec l arant. ” State v.6

1 Ca rm ona , 2016 -N MC A -0 50, ¶ 15, 371 P

. 3d 1 056 (c iti ng Craw ford v

. W ashi ngt on , 2 541 U

. S. 36, 54 ( 2004 )). I t “ ap pli es to w itn es se s a ga ins t the a cc use d w ho p ro vid e 3 t e st i m ony

f or the p ur pose of establishi ng or provin g som e fa ct.” H ue ttl , 20 13 -NMCA4 038, ¶ 16. “ [A ] person is a witness for Confr ontatio n Claus e p u rp o s es when that 5 person’ s statem ents go to an iss u e o f g u i l t or innocence.” Sta te v . A rago n , 201 0- 6 NMSC -0 08 , ¶ 8, 1 47 N.M. 47 4, 2 25 P.3d 12 80 , ov errul ed on o the r gr ound

s by Sta te 7 v. T ollardo , 201 2- N MS C- 008, ¶ 37 n

. 6, 275 P

. 3d 1 10. “ T esti m on ial s ta te m en ts” 8 include tho se that convey inform ation abou t evide n ce that was gathered af ter an 9 “ em er ge nc y

ha s bee n re sol ve d and the pol ic e hav e tur ne d thei r atte nti on to c oll ec tin g 10 ev id en ce fo r us e in a cri mi n al pro se cu ti on ag ai ns t a k no wn cr im in al pe rp et rat or .” 11 Ca rm ona , 2016 -N MCA -050, ¶¶ 17, 19. “ [B] asis evidence,” which includes out -of12 court-statem ents that form the basis for a testify ing witnes s ’s conclusion , whether 13 ex pe rt or lay , is te sti m oni al an d “ the re fo re m ust be sub j ec te d to Co nf

ro nta tio n C lause 14 scrutiny .” Id

. ¶ 37; se e als o Sta te v . Na va re tte , 201 3- N MS C- 003, ¶ ¶ 13- 14, 294 P

. 3d 15 435 (d isc uss ing W

ill iam s v . I

lli noi s , ___ U. S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012)). H owever , 16 w he re a w itn es s tes tif

ie s fr om pe rs ona l know le dge an d neithe r m ak es astate m en t no r 17 dr aw s ac onc lus ionthat i s ba se d onhe ar say , the Co nf ro nta tio n C lause is not 18 im pl ic at edat a ll

. Se e Craw

ford , 541 U

. S. a t 51 -5 2 ( hol din g th at the Co nf ro nta tio n 1 9 C l au s e i s i n t e n d e dt o b a r t h e a d m i s s i o n o f

t e s t i m o n i a l h e a r s ay ); Un i t ed States v.14 W e cannot he lp bu t obse rv e tha t D ef en dant’ s own m iss te ps i n pr ep ar ing f or 2 15 tr ia l are w ha t a ct

ua lly de pr ive d hi m

of a n op portun ity

to co nf ro nt the offic ers he 16 wished t o questio n. On the m orning o f trial, De fendant told th e trial j udge that he had 17 atte m pte d to subp oe na ce rt ai n of fi ce rs w hom he w ish ed to ca ll as w itn es se s. But 1 8 De fe n d an t

— ac t i n g p ro s e w i t h s t an db y co u n s e l

— h ad fa i l ed t o d o s o p ro p er l y. W e 19 al so n ote that D ef

en dant wa s f

ull y w ar ne d a bout the c ha lle nge s of

r ep re se nti ng 20 hi m se lf b u t c h o se to pro ceed pro se a nyway . See New some v. Farer , 1985-NMS C21 096, ¶

18, 103 N

. M. 415 , 708 P

. 2d 3 27 ( ex pla ini ng tha t “ a pr o se li tig ant, ha vin g 22 chosen to represent him self, is held to the sam e standard of conduct and com pliance 23 w ithc ourt r

ule s, pr oc ed

ur es , an d or de rs a s are m em be rs of the bar” ( em

pha sis 24 om itted)). 7 1 Ib arr a-D iaz , 805 F. 3d 90 8, 919-20 (10th Cir. 2015 ) (e xplaini ng that testim ony that 2 com m unicates no hearsay “ is generally of n o concern to the Confrontation Clause”). 3 { 13} W e apply

these principles to Defe ndant’s argum ent that the district court erred 4 by a dm itt ing e vid en ce se iz ed f ro m D ef en dant’ s ca r w he n De fe ndant did n ot h av e the 5 oppo rt uni ty to co nf ro nt part ic ular of

fi ce rs inv olv ed

in the se iz ur e an d hi s arr es t. 2 6 A ty pic al ly giv enour c onsi de ratio n of

the m er its of

the iss ue on a

ppe al , D ef

en dant d id 7 n o t c o n t e mp o r a n e o u s l y o b je c t t o t h e a d mi s s i o n o f

e i t h e r S t a t e ’s Ex h i b i t3 4 , t h e f

o rt y8 fi ve r ound s of bul le ts, or St at e’ s E xhi bit 35, the bla ck ba g inw hic h th e am

m uni tio n 9 w as f ound

. Rathe r, a ft er

the e vid en ce ha d be ena dm itt ed a nd a ft er the St at e re ste d, 10 standbycounsel m oved to su ppress Exhibits 3 4 and 35, arguing th at the Stat e h ad 11 failed to lay

the proper foundation for their discov ery and seizure. Standby counsel 1 2 al s o ar g u ed t h at t h e S t at e h ad f a i l e dt o p re s en tev i d en ce re g ar d i n g t h e e v i d en ce ’s 13 ch ai n of cu sto dy

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d D ef en dant’ s m oti on t o su

ppr es s, w hic h it14 G iv en the abse nc e of ti m el y obj ec tio n by

D ef en dant t o th e adm iss ionof the 3 15 co m pla ine d- of

e vid en ce a nd D ef

en dant’ s f ai lur e to dir ec tly ev oke the Co nf ro ntatio n 16 Cl au se as the ba sis f or his m oti on t o su

ppr es s, w e co uld

c onc lud e tha t this iss ue 1 7 s i mp l y wa s n o t p r e s e rv e d , i n wh i c h c a s e we wo u l dr e v i e wf o r f u n d a men t a l e rr o r

o n l y. 18 See State v. Dietrich , 200 9- N MC A -0 31, ¶ 51, 145 N

. M. 733, 204 P

. 3d 7 48 ( pr ovi din g 19 that pr es er

ve d Craw ford Co nf ro nta tio n is sue s are a na ly ze d un de r a harm le ss e rr or 20 standard , w hil e un- pr es er ve d Craw ford iss ue s are r ev ie w ed

f or f undam en ta l e rr or 21 only ). H ow ev er , be ca use D ef en dant i s pr o se a nd the ques ti on p re se nte d is of 22 co nst itu tio na l m ag nit ude , we exer ci se our

pr er oga tiv e to d ir ec tly

a ddr es s th e iss ue 23 pr es en te d. 8 1 co nsi de re d ar igh t- of

-c onf ro nta tio n c ha lle nge . T he dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d on Stat e v. 3 2 Lopez , 201 3- N MS C- 047, ¶ 26, 314 P

. 3d 2 36 ( hol din g th at the S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t 3 of co nf ro nt at io n d oe s n ot ap pl y in pr et ria l he ari ng s) to reac h i ts de ci si on . Whi le we 4 be lie ve the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r el ianc e on Lopezwas m is pl aced , as we exp la in be lo w, we 5 ag ree wi th th e co nc lu si on reac he d a nd affi rm on ot he r gr ou nd s. Se e Sta te v . R uiz , 6 2007 -N MCA -014, ¶ 38, 141 N.M. 53, 150 P.3d 1003 ( ex p l ai n i ng that as a general 7 rule, we will upholdthe decision of a district court if it is right for any rea son). 8 { 14} On appeal, De fendant asserts, without provi ding suppo rt fr om the rec ord, that 9 the testify ing officers “ would have had to rely on the out-of-court testim onial hearsay 10 state m en ts o f the of

fi ce r w ho signe d the af

fi da vit an d cond

uc te d the se ar cha nd the 11 of fi ce r w ho arr es te d [ D ef

en dant]

. ” D ef

en dant thus ap pe ar s to arg ue tha t the te sti fy ing 12 of fi ce rs of fe re d im pr ope r, te sti m oni al “ ba sis e vid en ce ” re gard in g the or igi n of the 13 am m uniti on. W e disagree.9

1 { 15} In Ca rm ona , thi s C ourt he ld tha t an exp ert ’s te sti m ony statin g th at

the 2 de fe ndant’ s D N A w as f ound on s w ab s take n f

ro m the vi ct im was in adm iss ibl e 3 be ca use it vio la te d th e Co nf

ro nta tio n C lause . 201 6- N MC A -0 50, ¶ 37. In tha t ca se , the 4 state a rg ue d th at

it s e xpert re lie d onthe sw ab s th em se lve s, not on the unava ila

ble 5 Se xua l A ssa

ult N ur se E xa m ine r’ s he ar say state m en t tha t the sw ab s w er e ta ke n f ro m 6 the victim , to re ach her c onclusi on. W e rej ected the state’ s argum ent, r easoning that 7 the sw ab s, an d part ic ularl y the inf orm at iona cc om

pany ing the m , w er e uti liz ed to 8 es ta bli sh o r pr ove f

ac ts t ha t “ re fl ec t[ ed ] di rect ly o n [ the d] ef en dant’ s gu ilt

or 9 inno cence[ ,] ” id. ¶ 38 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ), thu s m ak ing 10 statem ents regarding the circum stances of t heir u se t estim onial. Because the expert 11 ha d base d her opi nio n on an unava ila ble w itn es s’ s te sti m oni al he ar say ( i. e. , that the 12 swa bs were take n f

ro m the vic tim

a nd f ro m spe ci fi c loc at ion s onhe r body ), we 13 concluded th at the defendant’ s right of confrontation wa s v i o l at ed when he w as 14 deprived of an oppo rtunity to cross-exam ine the person who collected the evidence. 15 Id

. ¶ 42. 16 { 16} T h e p e rt i n e n t t e s t i mo n y i n t h i s c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f r o m Ca rm ona . S te lla 17 Carbaj al, the evidence custodian and crim e scene te chnician with t h e Las Cruce s 18 Po lic e D ep ar

tm en t w ho w as calle d to the inc ide nt at the A ri d C lub , w as the onl y 19 w itn es s w ho t es tif

ie d r eg ar din g a cquis iti on o f the co m pla ine d- of ev ide nc e. A lth ough10

1 not one of the sw or

n polic e of

fi ce rs inv olv ed

in the se ar ch , Ms

. Carb aj al ’ s te sti m ony 2 w as e ve ntf

ul: she pe rs ona lly

c oll ec te d e vid en ce f

ro m D ef en dant’ s ve hic le , inc lud ing 3 St at e’ s E xhi bit s 34 a nd 3 5. S he li ke w ise te sti fi ed r eg ar din g th e pr oc ed

ur es use d to 4 en sur e the ev ide nti ar

y ch ai n of cus tody an d ver if ie d that St at e’ s E xhi bit s 34 a nd 3 5 5 we re in the sam e condition as w hen she collected the evidence. 6 { 17} U nli ke in Ca rm ona , w he re the de fe ndant w as de nie d the oppo rt uni ty to cr oss 7 e x a mi n e t h e p e r s o n w h o c o l l e c t e d a n d d o c u me n t e d t h e D N A s w ab s f r o m th e v i c t i m, 8 here, De fendant had, and indeed exercised, the oppo rtunity to confront Ms. Car

baj al 9 regarding her collection and handlin g of the evidence in questio n. D efendant asked 10 about ho w and where Ms. C arbaj al photo graphed the black AA RP bag that contained 11 the forty -five bullets. H e asked w hether she m oved that evid ence. Ms. C arbaj al 12 verifie d fo r D efendant that the bag containin g the am m uniti on was in the car

when 13 the se ar chbe gan and tha t the 45 bulle ts w er e fo und the re . O ur r ev ie wof

Ms

. 14 Carb aj al ’ s te sti m ony

r ev ea ls tha t sh e of

fe re d no te sti m oni al he ar say r eg ar din g th e 1 5 o ri g i n o r s ei zu re o f t h e a m m u n i t i o n o r a n y o t h eri t em of ev i d en ce fr o m

De fe n d an t ’s 16 car. 17 { 18} Wha t D ef

en dant r ea lly

se em s to c ha lle nge on a

ppe al is the f

ac t tha t he did

not 18 ha ve a n op portun ity

to co nf ro nt the a ddi tio na l of

fi ce rs w ho “ co nduc te d th e se ar ch ” 19 of his c ar in or de r to e xpl or e a spe cu la tiv e the or y that the bul le ts w er e plante d inhis11

1 car. I nsof

ar a s D ef en dant com

plain s th at

the c ha in o f cu sto dy

f or a dm itt ing the 2 ev id en ce i s d efi ci en t, wh ic h i s h ow h e p res en te d h is arg um en t t o t he di st ric t co ur t, we 3 re j ec t this a rg um en t. “ The adm iss ionof r ea l or de m onstrativ e ev ide nc e doe s no t 4 re qui re the [s ] ta te to est ab lis h the ch ai n of cus tody in suf fi ci en t det ai l t o e xc lud e al l 5 poss ibilityof tam

pering.” State v. R odrig uez , 2009 -N MC A -0 90, ¶ 24, 146 N

. M. 824 , 6 215 P. 3d 7 62. “ A dm iss ionof ev id en ce is w ith in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc re tio n and 7 the re is no a

buse of dis cr et ion w he n th e ev ide nc e is s how n by apr ep onde ranc e of

the 8 evidence to be what it purports to be.” Id

. De fendant concedes that Ms. Carbaj al “ wa s 9 present and tookpictures” of the evidence f ound in his car but infers that her 10 te sti m ony

f ai ls b ec au se she “ is not a law en fo rc em en t off ic er [, ] ” a le ga l pr opos iti on 11 for w hich he fails to provide authorityor suppo rt. De fendant’ s claim that “ [t] he trial 12 court adm itted evidence seized by officer s not present at trial and theref ore violated 13 [D ef en dant’ s] r igh t t o c onf

ro nta tio n” ign or es the f

ac t tha t M s. Carb aj al , w hil e not a 14 sw or n of fi ce r but r athe r the e vid en ce te ch ni c i anthat a ct ua lly se iz ed the e vid en ce f

ro m 15 D ef en dant’ s c ar , w as qua lif

ie d as a fa ct w itn es s to t es tif y r eg ar din g th e or igi n of

the 16 ev ide nc e. W e cannot

say that the dis tr ic t cour

t abus ed it s di sc re tio n ina dm itt ing the 17 bullets and the bag, which contained them , into evidence given that Ms. Ca rb aj al 18 te sti fi ed

a nd w as sub

j ec te d to c ro ss e xa m ina tio n r eg ar din g th e ev ide nc e she c oll ec te d.16 Whil e the r ec or d is n ot cle ar a s to w he the r D et ec tiv e D ow ns s pe ci fi ca lly 4 17 part ic ipate d inthe se ar chof the c ar a nd wa s pe rs ona lly

inv olv ed in se iz ing the 18 am m uni tio n f ro m D ef en dant’ s c ar , D ef

en dant h ad

the opp ortun ity

to co nf ro nt this 19 w itn es s bu t f

ai le d to e xpl or e the m atte r on c ro ss e xa m ina tio n. 12 1 { 19} W it h re sp ect to th e St at e’s ot he r wit ne ss es , Defen da nt arg ue s t ha t “[t ]he two 2 of fi ce rs w ho t es tif

ie d a t tri al did

not w itn es s th e se ar ch an d co uld not ha ve pos sib ly 3 known th at

the bul le ts w ere s ei zed f ro m [ D ef en dant’ s] c ar . ” Bu t D ef

en dant f ai ls t o 4 de m onstrate that e ith er of fi ce r m ad e an y

state m en t r eg ar din g th e am m uni tio n 5 spe ci fi ca lly

f ound in D ef en dant’ s c ar . O ur

r ev ie wof

the re co rd le ad s us to co nc lud e 6 that D ef

en dant p oin ts t o no spe ci fi c ex am ple s of te sti m oni al he ar say state m en ts a

bout 7 the c om

pla ine d- of

e vid en ce be ca

use non e ex ist

. 8 { 20} O ff

ic er S av ag e, the K -9 of

fi ce r w ho w as inv olv ed in the a ct ua l a ppr eh en sio n 9 o f D ef en d an t , d i dn o tt es t i fy a tal l re g ar d i n g t h e a m m u n i t i o n fo u n di n De fe n d an t ’s 10 car. And w hile Detec tive Dow ns testified that he assist ed with the post-arrest sear ch 11 an d inse curi ng e vid en ce , a nd saw the am m uni tio n th at

w as f ound in the c as e, he did

4 12 not testify

that the am

m uniti on w as seized fr om

De fendant’ s car, suggest that he had 13 pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of t ha t fa ct , or rely on t es ti m on ia l h ears ay reg ard in g t ha t fa ct

. See 14 Craw ford , 541 U. S. at 5 1-52 (holdin g that the Confrontation Clause is intended to b ar 15 the adm iss ion of te sti m oni al he ar say ); Ib arr a-D iaz , 805 F

. 3d a t 91 9- 20 ( ex pla ini ng13

1 that t es tim ony

that c om

m uni cate s no he ar say

“ is ge nera lly

of no c onc er

n to the 2 Confrontation Clause”). 3 { 22} W e co nc lud e tha t D ef en dant’ s Six th A m en dm en t r igh t t o c onf ro nt the 4 witnesses a g ai n s t him wa s not vi olated because no witness’ s testim ony included 5 te sti m oni al he ar say . T he dis tr ic t cour t did not er

r by de ny ing D ef

en dant’ s m oti on t o 6 supp re ss S ta te ’ s E xhi bit s 34 a nd 3 5. 7 II. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e to Su stain De fend ant’s Two Convict ions 8 { 23} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at the S ta te f ai le d to pr es en t su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce to sus ta in 9 his c onvi ct ion s f

or re sis tin g, ev ad ing , or obstru ct ing a n of fi ce r an d f

or be ing af el on 10 in pos session of a firear m . W e agre e that there w as insufficient evidence to convict 11 De fendant of fleeing, evading, or attem pting to evade a peac e office r, but we disagree 12 with respect to the f

elon-in-pos session of a f

irear m charge. 13 A. Stand ard of R eview 14 { 24} “ T o de te rm ine w he the r the e vid en ce pr es en te d w as suf fi ci en t t o su sta in the 15 ve rd ic t, w e m

ust de ci de w he the r subs tant ia l ev ide nc e of e ith er adir ec t or 16 ci rc um stanti al na tur e ex ist s to supp ort a ve rd ic t of gui lty be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt 17 wit h re spect to every elem ent essential to a convictio n.” Sta te v . B rie tag , 198 9- 18 N MC A -0 19, ¶

9, 108 N

. M. 368 , 77 2 P. 2d 8 98. W e “ vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght 19 m ost f av or ab le to the gui lty

ve rd ic t, ind

ulg ing a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s and r es olv ing14

1 a l l c on f

l i c t s i n t he e vi de nc e i n f a vo r o f t he v e r di ct.” St at e v. Cu nni ngha m , 200 0- 2 N MS C- 009, ¶ 26, 128 N

. M. 711, 998 P. 2d 1 76. “ W e do n ot r ew ei gh the e vid en ce a nd 3 m ay not s ub s t i tu t e o u r j u d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f t h e f

a c t f i n d e r , s o l o n g a s t h e re is 4 sufficient evidence to supp ort the verdict.” B rie tag , 1989-NMC A- 019, ¶ 9. “ Contrary 5 evidence suppo rting acquittal do es not provi de a basis for reversa l because the j ury 6 is f ree to r ej ect [the d] efendant’ s versio n o f t h e facts.” Sta te v . R ojo , 1999-NMS C7 00 1, ¶ 1 9, 1 26 N.M. 43 8, 9 71 P.2d 82 9. 8 B. Th er e Was In su ff ic ie ntEv id en ce F or t he Ju ry t o Conv ic t De fe nd an t of 9 R es ist in g, Ev ad in g, or Ob st ru ct in g an Of fi ce r in V iol at ion of

S ec ti on 30- 10 22-1(B) 11 { 25} For re asons th at are not clear, the State e lecte d t o charge, and the grand jury 12 indicted, De fendant under Subsection (B ) of Sec tion 3 0-22-1. Subsection (B) def ines 13 “ [r ] es ist ing , ev ad ing [, ] or obstru ct ing an of fi ce r” as co nsi sting of “ int en tio na lly 14 fl ee in g, at te m

pti ng t o e va de [, ] or

e va din g an of

fi ce r of thi s st at e w he n th e pe rs on 15 com m itting the act of f

leeing, attem

pting to e vade[, ] or evasion has kn owledge that 16 the of fi ce r is atte m

pti ng t o a ppr eh en d or

a rr es t hi m [. ] ” Se ct ion30- 22- 1( B)

. T he S ta te 17 opted no t to charge D efendant under Subse ct i o n (D ), which defines the prohibited 18 conduct as consi sting of “ resisting or abus ing any j udge, m agistrate[, ] or peace officer 19 in the law fu l di sc harg e of his dut ie s. ” Se ct ion30- 22- 1( D ). A s w e ex pla in b el ow , our15

1 reading o f Se ct i o n 3 0-22-1 as a w hole leads us to conclude that the State lacked 2 sufficient evidence to convict Defe ndant un der Subsection (B). 3 { 26} Our Le g islature chose to differentiate the m anner by which a def

endant can 4 vio la te S ec tio n 30 -2 2- 1 by e m plo y ing langua ge ind ic at ive of a ct ion , r el at ed

to fl igh t 5 fr om a rr es t, a nd s ep ar at e langua ge that i nvol ve s im m ed ia te int eracti on be tw ee n a 6 subj ec t and an arr es tin g of fi ce r w he n th e subj ec t is no n- co m pli an t w ithbe ing 7 arre st ed

. Co m

pare § 3 0- 22 -1 (B), wi th § 30-22-1(D). Regarding the language chosen 8 by the Le gislature, rules of statutory construction require that we “ construe the e ntire 9 statut e as aw hol e so tha t a ll the pr ovi sio ns w ill be c onsi de re d in re la tio n to one 10 another.” A m . F

ed ’n of Sta te, Cn ty

. & M

un. E m ps. ( A F SC M E ) v. Ci tyof

A lbu que rque , 11 2013 -N MCA -063, ¶ 5, 304 P.3d 443 (internal quo tation m arks and citation om itted). 12 Furthe rm or e , w e c on str ue s t a tut e s “ so t hat

n o parto f

t he s t a tut e i s r e nd e r ed 13 surplus age or superfluous[.] ” Id

. (internal quotation m arks a n d citation om itted). 14 T he re fo re , the L eg isl at ur e’ s us e of

the te rm “ ev ad ing ” in the ti tle a nd b ody of the 15 statut e, a s w el l a s it s in cl usi on o f a pr ovi sio n th at m ak es “ int en tio na lly f le ei ng, 16 atte m pti ng t o ev ad e[ , ] or ev ad ing anof fi ce r” adis tin gui sha

ble c ri m e unde r Se ct ion 17 30-22-1(B), is sign ificant and, w e m ust assum e, not m ere surplus age. 18 { 27} Inpr ev iou sly

int er pr et ing thi s st at

ute , w e ex pla ine d th at

“ [t ] he c ri m e of 19 re sis tin g, e va din g[ , ] or obstru ct ing a n of fi ce r as se t f

orth i n S ec tio n 30 -2 2- 1, c ont ai ns16

1 several alter

nat i ve m eans by

which the offe nse m ay

be com m itted.” Sta te v . H

am ilton , 2 1988 -N MC A -0 23, ¶

14, 107 N

. M. 186 , 754 P

. 2d 857. “ A de fe ndant’ s ac t of f le ei ng, 3 atte m pti ng t o e va de [, ] or

e va din g an of

fi ce r co nst itu te s one of the al te rn at ive m ethods 4 of co m m itting the offense pros cribed u nder Section 30-22-1.” Id

. ; see § 30-22-1(B). 5 Another distinct way

of violating the statute is by “ resisting or a

busin g” an office r. 6 Section 30-22-1(D). 7 { 28} T he re is nothin g to pr ev en t the S ta te f ro m c harg ing ade fe ndant unde r m ult ipl e 8 su bs ect io ns if i t i s n otcle ar wh ic h c ha rg e th e e v id en ce wi ll ul ti m at el y su pp or t. See 9 Be navidez v. Shutiva , 201 5- N MC A -0 65, ¶ 24, 350 P

. 3d 1 234 (i llu str at ing that it is 10 poss ible to charge both fleeing and resistin g in violation of S ection 30-22 -1); Sta te 11 v. P adi lla , 200 6- N MC A -1 07, ¶ 25, 140 N

. M. 333, 142 P. 3d 9 21 ( ex pla ini ng tha t the 12 resisting/evad ing instructio n that the j ury rece ived allowed th e jury to convi ct under 13 either “ fled, attem

pted to evade[ ,] or evaded” or the “ resisted or abused” alternative), 14 re v’d on oth er

gro unds by 2008 -N MS C- 006, 143 N

. M. 310, 176 P. 3d 29 9. “ [T ] he 15 prosecutor is free t o select the statute and the charges to be brought agains t [a 16 d] efendant.” Sta te v. Archie , 199 7- N MC A -0 58, ¶ 11, 123 N

. M. 503 , 943 P

. 2d 5 37. 1 7 H o w e v e r , w h e r e as t a tu t e p r o v i d e s d i s t i n c ta n da l t e rn a t i v e o f f e n s e s a n dt h e s t a te 18 ch oose s to c harg e unde r onl y apart ic ul ar pa rt of

the statut e, “ the pr ose cu tio n is 19 lim ited to provi ng what it has charged. ” Sta te v . L ea l , 198 6- N MC A -0 75, ¶ 14, 10417

1 N

. M. 506 , 723 P

. 2d 9 77. A ddi tio na lly , in or de r to c onvi ct , the state m ust pr es en t 2 suf fi ci en t e vid en ce of “ gui lt be y ond a re as ona ble doubt wi th r es

pe ct to ev er y el em en t 3 es se nti al to a c onv ic tio n .” State v. Carter , 1979 -N MC A -1 17, ¶ 6, 93 N

. M. 500 , 601 4 P. 2d 73 3 (em

phasis add ed). 5 { 29} O ur un ifo rm

jury in st ru ct io ns rei nf

or ce t he st ru ctur e o f Sec ti on 30- 22- 1 a nd o ur 6 co nc lus ionthat a

vio la tio n of on e subs ec tio n c an not ne ce ssari ly

e sta bli sh a vio la tio n 7 of a nothe r. U JI 14- 2215 N MR A co nta ins fo ur el em en ts tha t the St at e m ust pr ove in 8 or de r to es ta

bli sh vio la tio n of Se ct ion 30- 22- 1. T hr ee of the el em en ts ar e co m m on t o 9 al l c ases , r eg ar dle ss o f w hic h of the “ al te rn at ive m ethods ” the state a lle ge s a 10 de fe ndant u se d to vio la te the statut e. T he S ta te m ust pr ove th e fi rs t, se co nd, a nd 11 fo u r t h e l e m en ts co nt ai ne d i n UJ I 14 -2 21 5 i n e ve ry cas e. See U JI 14- 2215 ( “ [T ] he 12 state m

ust pr ove . . . e ac h of

the f oll ow ing e le m en ts o f the c ri m e[

. ] ”)

. T hose c om m on 13 elem ents are that ( 1) the person being resisted, evaded, or o b s t ru ct ed wa s a peace 14 officer , judge, or m agistrate in the lawf ul discharge of duty ; (2) the defe ndant kn ew 15 that the pe rs on w as a pe ace of fi ce , j udge , or

m ag istrate ; and ( 3) the inc ide nt i n 16 qu es ti on happ en edin New Mex ic o o n o r ab ou t a p art ic ul ar d at e. Id

. 17 { 30} A lso unde r U J I 1 4

- 2 2 1 5 , o n e o f f o u r a l t e rn a t i v e a c t i o n s m

u s tb e p r o v e n to 18 sa ti sf y th e th ird el em en t of th e o ffen se . See U JI 14- 2215 , U se N ote 3 ( “ U se onl y the 19 ap pl ic ab le alt ern at iv e.”). See B enavidez , 2015 -N MC A -0 65, ¶ 24 ( co nf irm ing that a18

1 defendant can be char ged und er m ul t i p l e s u b sections of the statut e; in such a case, 2 m ult ipl e ap pli ca

ble a lte rn at ive s f

or the thi rd e le m en t of

U JI 14- 2215 w oul d be giv en , 3 as appr opr ia te ). T he f

our a lte rn at ive s f

or the thi rd e le m en t c or

re spon d to the f

our 4 subs ection s o f Se ct ion 30 -22-1. T hus, when the state c harges a defe ndant un der 5 Su bse ct ion( B) of

S ec tio n 30 -2 2- 1, it

w ou ld ha ve to pr ove the se co nd 6 al te rn at ive —tha t “ [t ] he de fe ndant .

. . f le d, a tte m pte d to e va de [, ] or

e va de d ( nam e of 7 officer )” ; w he reas whe n th e state c harg es und er S ubse ct ion( D ), it

m ust pr ove the 8 fo urth a lte rn at ive —tha t “ [t ] he de fe ndant re sis te d or a buse d ( name of officer )[

. ] ” U JI 9 14 -2 21 5. 10 { 31} Inthi s c as e, the dis tr ict co urt i nstru ct ed the j ur y on the e sse nti al e le m en ts o f 11 “ resisting, evading, or obstructing an office r” in the following m anner: 12 Fo r y ou t o f ind [D]e fe ndant g uil ty

of r es ist ing , e va din g[ , ] or 13 obstru ct in g an

of fi ce r as c harg ed

in Co unt 2, the [ S] ta te m

ust pr ove to 14 y our

sa tis fa ct ionbe y ond a re as ona ble doubt e ach of

the f oll ow ing 15 elem ents of the crim e: 16 1. [D etective] Dow ns or [O ffice r] Savage w as a peac e office r 1 7 i n t h e l a w f

u l d i s c h a r g e o f

du t y; 18 2. [D ] efendant knew W allace D own s or Joshu a Savage wa s 19 a pe ac e of

fi ce r[ ;] 20 3. [D ] ef endant, w iththe kno w le dge that W al la ce D ow ns o r 21 Jo sh ua Sav ag e was att em pt in g t o app reh en d or arres t [D]efen da nt , fled , 22 at te m

pt edto ev ad e[,] or evaded W al la ce D ow ns o r Jos huaS av ag e; a nd19

1 4. T his ha ppe ne d in N ew Me xic o on or ab out the 25th day of 2 Fe br

uary , 201 2. 3 (E m phasis add ed.) This instruction was c onsis tent with the way De fendant wa s 4 ch arg ed in the gr an d j ur y ind ic tm en t, a nd the thi rd e le m en t w as the appr opr ia te 5 al te rn at ive to g ive in lig ht o f D ef en dant b ei ng s pe ci fi ca lly

c harg ed und er S ubse ct ion 6 (B) o f th e st atut e. Se e Le al , 198 6- N MC A -0 75, ¶ 15 ( “ A de fe ndant m ay

not be 7 convicted of a crim e for which he was not charged or tr ied.”) . T he question is whether 8 the St at e pr es en te d ev ide nc e to pr ove the thi rd es se nti al el em en t: that Defen dant 9 “ fled, attem

pted to evade[,] or evaded” D etective D owns or O fficer Savage before 1 0 t h e y w e r e ab l e t o a rr e s th i m. 11 { 32} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at the or din ar y m eanin g of “ ev ad e” is “ to s tay a w ay f ro m 12 som eo ne or

som ethin g or

to sli p aw ay . ” T he S ta te ur ge s us to de fi ne “ ev ad e” a s “ to 13 av oid doi ng ( som ethin g r equir ed ). ” Be ca use the te rm

“ ev ad e” i s susc ep tib le of 14 m ult ipl e m eanin gs, a s ev ide nc ed by the part ie s’ co m pe tin g de fi nit ion s tha t the y ur ge 15 us t o a dopt , w e tur

n to r ule s of statut or y c onstru ct ionto de te rm ine howthe 16 Leg is la tu re in te nd ed to de fin e “ ev ad e” i n S ect io n 3 0- 22 -1

. Se e R uss el l M oto r C ar C o. 17 v. Un i t ed

States , 261 U. S. 514, 519 (192 3) (explaining th at rules of statutory 18 construction “ have no place .

. . except in the dom ain of am bigu ity ”). 19 { 33} A “plain m eaning” analy sis is no t appropriate here bec ause o f the facia l 20 am bigu ity of the term

“ evade.” Se e P adi lla , 2008 -N MS C- 006, ¶ 7 ( “ If the langua ge20

1 of the statut e is d oubt fu l[ or ] a m big uous . . . the c ourt sh oul d r ej ec t the pla in m eanin g 2 ru le in fav orof c on st ru in g t he st atut e acc or di ng to it s o b v i o u s s p i r i t o r rea so n.” 3 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed ))

. T he re fo re , w e start by appl y ing the 4 interpretive m axim

of nosc itu r a so ci is , which expresses the notio n that “ a w ord m ay 5 be known by

the com pany it keeps.” R uss el l M

oto r C ar C o. , 26 1 U.S. at 51 9. 6 { 34} “T h e ma x i m nosc itu r a s oc iis appl ie s and c onf ine s th e w or d to am eanin g 7 kind red to th at o f t h e wo rds with w hich it is asso ciated.” City of Albuquerque v. 8 M idd le R io G rand

e Co nse rv anc

y D ist

. , 194 1-NMSC-021, ¶ 33, 45 N

. M. 313 , 115 9 P. 2d 6 6 ( Sa lde r, J. , dis se nti ng)

. T his c an on o f statut or y c onstru ct ionins tr

uc ts tha t, 10 w he n in te rp re tin g an un cl ear or a m big uous te rm

w ith in a stat ut e, we “ loo k[ ] to the 11 neighb oring words in a statute to cons true the contextua l m eani ng of a particular 12 word in the statute.” In re Ga br ie l M. , 200 2- N MC A -0 47, ¶ 19, 132 N

. M. 124 , 45 P

. 3d 13 64; se e Uni te d St at es v. W il li ams , 553 U

. S. 285 , 294 ( 2008 ) (e xpl ai nin g th at w or ds 14 that are “ sus ce pti ble of m ult ipl e an d w ide -r an gin g m ean ing s” c anbe “ narr ow ed by 15 the com

m onsens e canon of nosc itu r a s oc iis —which counsels th at a word is g iven 16 m ore prec ise content bythe neighbo ring words with w hich it is asso ciated”). 17 { 35} Inthi s c as e, S ubse ct ion( B) of Se ct ion 30- 22- 1 as soc ia te s “ atte m pti ng to e va de 18 or ev ad ing ” w ith “ fl ee ing

. ” W e thi nk the fa ct tha t the se te rm s are c oll oc at ed w ith in 19 the sam e subs ec tio n e vin ce s th e L eg isl at ur e’ s in te nt t o li ke n an act of e va sio n or21

1 atte m pte d ev as ion to fl ee ing

. “ Fl ee ” as a tr an sit ive ve rb , as it is use d inS ec tio n 30

- 2 22-1, is com

m onlydefined as “ to run away from .” M

erria m-W eb ster D ic tio nary , 3 http: //ww w. m erriam -w ebster.c om /diction ary

/flee (l as t visited on De c. 9, 2016). 4 Reading “ evade” and “ flee” as k indred term s leads us to conclud e that the L egislature 5 int en de d th at

“ ev ad e” be und er sto od b y the c om m on d efinit ionthat m ost c los el y 6 connects “ evade” to “ flee. ” We believe the correc t way to define t he term “ evade” as 7 used in Section 30-22-1 is as m eaning “ to elude by dexterity or stratagem ” or, m ore 8 sim ply , “ to be elusive to[.] ” M erria m -W eb ste r D ic tio nary , h t t p : // w w w . me rr i a m9 w eb ste r.co m

/di ct ion ar y /e va de ( la st v isi te d onD ec . 9, 201 6)

. T his de fi nit ionof 10 “ ev ad e” m ost

c los el y para lle ls o ur

und er standi ng o f the term “ fl ee ” as m eanin g “ to 11 run aw ay

f ro m ” be ca

use it share s th e com

m on c hara ct er ist ic of

c onno tin g th e ste al ing 12 aw ay of one se lf by a ff irm at ive , int en tio na l c ondu ct

. 13 { 36} Inor de r, how ev er , to not re nde r “ ev ad e” m er e sur plu sa ge , w e not e tha t the se 14 term s, w hile associated, ar e not identical or synonym ous. What disti n g u i s h es them 15 is the nature o f th e con duct and how evasi on is achieved: “ flee” being cond uct that 16 is op en an d o bv io us , and “ ev ad e” i nc lu di ng co nd uc t t ha t i s s urrep ti ti ou s. See State v. 17 Gutierrez , 200 5- N MC A -0 93, ¶ 20, 13 8 N

. M. 147 , 117 P

. 3d 9 53 ( ev al ua tin g 18 ci rc um stanc es w he re an of fi ce r as ke d the de fe ndant t o st op, the de fe ndant i gnor ed the 19 of fi ce r, w en t i nsi de ahou se c la im ing tha t he ne ed ed to use the ba thr oom , w al ke d ou t22

1 th e b ackdo orof t he ho us e, th en jum pe d o ve r a b ack y ardfen ce), aff’d in part, rev’d 2 in p art on o the r gr ound

s by 2007 -N MSC- 033, 142 N.M. 1, 162 P. 3d 15 6. In 3 Gutierrez , w e de sc ri bed a c harg e unde r Se ct ion30- 22- 1( B) a s be ing “ ev ad ing a nd 4 el ud in g.” 20 05 -NMCA- 09 3, ¶ 2 0. Whi le th e st atut e d oe s n ot u s e t h e te rm “ el ud e,” 5 Gutierrez ’ s i nt e r

pr e t a t i on of t he t e rm “ e va de ” t o a l so m e a n “ e l ud e ” is an 6 int er pr et at ionthat t oo i s c onsi ste nt w ithf lig ht. 7 { 37} W e can no t s ay

th e sa m e ab ou t eq ua ti ng “ ev ad e ” wit h “ av oi d.” Whi le we 8 ac know le dge tha t the St at e co rr ec tly poi nts to one de fi nit ionof “ ev ad e” a s be ing “ to 9 av oiddoi ng ( som et hin g req ui red )”, se e Mer ri am- W eb st er Dict io nary , 10 ht tp :/ /www.m erri am -web st er.co m /d ic ti on ary/ev ad e (l as t v is ite d on Dec. 9, 2 01 6) , we 11 co nc lud e tha t this is not the de fi nit ionthat the L eg isl at ur e int en de d to be use d in the 12 co nte xt o f Se ct ion30- 22- 1( B)

. Whil e one w ho “ ev ad es ” or “ el ude s” is ne ce ssari ly 13 al so avoi din g, th e inv er se is not tr ue . O ne c ana voi d ( doi ng s om ethin g r equir ed ) 14 w ith out

ne ce ssari ly

e va din g or

e lud ing

. T he L eg isl at

ur e m ad e “ ev ad e” the “ lin gui sti c 15 neighb or,” Bul lo ck v. Ba nk Ch amp ai gn , N.A. , ___

U

. S. ___ , ___, 133 S

. Ct

. 175 4, 16 1760 ( 2013 ), of

“ fl ee ” in s ubse ct ion(B) , w hic h m eans w e ar e to g ive “ ev ad e” the 17 m ean in g t ha t m os t cl os el y an d l og ic al ly ass oc ia te s i t wi th it s n ei gh bo r, “ fle e.” 18 { 38} This interpretation is c o n sistent with ou r ca ses that construe Subsection (B)

. 19 What all of o ur Sub section (B) cases have in com m on is th at the defendant’ s conduct23

1 that supp orted convictio n under Subsection (B) invo lved an aff irm ative phy sical act 2 to m ov e an d/ orst ay

away fro m an off ic e r i n o r de r to av oi d c ap tu re al to ge th er (i .e., 3 fl ee ing or

e va din g) , r athe r than th e m er e fo re sta llm en t of be ing ar re ste d (i. e. , r es ist ing 4 orrefu si ng to co m

pl y wit h c omm an ds to su rren de r). See, e. g. , Sta te v. A ke rs , 201 0- 5 N MC A -1 03, ¶

¶ 1, 9- 10, 149 N

. M. 53, 243 P

. 3d 7 57 ( de sc ri bin g asit ua tio n w he re the 6 defendant, a fter br iefly stopp ing hi s truck for offic er s who we re attem pting an 7 investig atory

stop, sped aw ay

and w a s l at e r charged under Subsection (B)) ; Gutierrez , 8 2005 -N MC A -0 93, ¶ 20, ( de sc ri bin g c ir cu m stanc es w he re a n of fi ce r as ke d th e 9 defendant to stop, the defendant igno red the officer , we nt insi de a house claim ing th at 10 he needed to use the bathroom , wa lked out the back door of the hou se, then j um ped 11 over a backy ard fe nce); Sta te v . D iaz , 1995 -N MC A -1 37, ¶ 17, 121 N

. M. 28, 908 P

. 2d 1 2 258 ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t“ e v i d e n c e t h a t[ t h e d ] e f e n d a n tw a s b a c k i n g a w a y f r o m t he 13 of fi ce rs . . . w oul d have supp orte d a find ing tha t [th e d] ef en dant w as . . . a tte m

pti ng 14 to ev ad e ar

re st in v iol at ionof

S ec tio n 30 -2 2- 1( B) ”) ; Sta te v . A ndaz ola , 19 81 -NMCA15 002, ¶ ¶ 3- 5, 95 N

. M. 430 , 622 P

. 2d 1 050 (e va lua tin g fa ct s w he re the de fe ndant 16 wa lked away

from the police, went into hi s hous e, and used his dog to keep police at 17 bay ). W e believe these ca ses m ake clear that, in order to violate Se ction 30 -22-1(B), 18 a de fe ndant m

ust e nga ge in co nd uc t tha t i s tantam ount to fl ee ing , w hic h, a s th e 19 langua ge of

S ubse ct ion( B) sug ge sts , c anbe a cc om pli she d e ith er op en ly

( e. g. , by24

1 runni ng o r dr iving aw ay f ro m a n of fi ce r, or “ fl ee ing ”) , or

sur re pti tio usl y

( i. e. , by 2 “ evading” or “ attem

pting to evade”). 3 { 39} By

c ontra st, our

c as es that deal w ithS ubse ct ion( D )— “ re sis tin g or 4 abusing ”—m ake it clear that violatio ns of Subsection (D ) differ from Subsection (B) 5 vio la tio ns i n th at

ade fe ndant’ s vi ola tio n is pr ed ic at ed on a dir ec t e nga ge m en t w ith , 6 rat he r th an ev as io n o f an off ic er. Se e Sta te v . Co tto n , 201 1- N MC A -0 96, ¶ 23, 150 7 N

. M. 583 , 263 P. 3d 925 (de sc ri bin g the de fe ndant’ s cond uc t tha t re sul te d in his be ing 8 ch ar ge d un de r Su

bse ct ion( D ) as kic kin g a t of fi ce rs w ho w er e tr

y ing to pla ce him

in 9 police car and po sition ing hi s legs and head to prevent the door from being closed); 10 D iaz , 1995-NMC A- 137 , ¶ 1 4 (explaining that “ [a] ny one who com m its aggravated 11 as sault

[ on a pol ic e of fi ce r]

. . . al so c om

m its r es ist ing in vio la tio n of [ Se ct ion ] 30- 22- 12 1(D) ”); State v. P adi lla , 1 983- N MC A -0 96, ¶ ¶ 2, 9, 10, 101 N

. M. 78, 68 P

. 2d 7 06 13 (holdin g that resisting an o ffice r, such as b y kicking the officer in the groin, i s a lesser 14 in cl ud edoff

en se of b at te ry

on a po li ce o ffi cer)

. 15 { 40} O ur

c as es il lus tr at e tha t anothe r w ay ape rs on can vio la te S ubse ct ion( D ) is b y 1 6 av o i d i n g d o i n g s o m et h i n g re qu i re d , i n cl u d i n g re fu s i n g t o co m p l y wi t h an o ff

i ce r’s 17 or de rs . See, e. g. , D iaz , 199 5- N MC A -1 37, ¶ ¶ 4, 16- 23 ( pr ovi din g th at “ re sis tin g” 18 refe rs not onl y

to a defendant’ s overt phy sical act, but also to the failure to ac t when 19 re fu sin g to obe y law fu l pol ic e co m m an ds, suc h as dr oppi ng a w ea pon) ; se e als o City17 T he S ta te ’ s r el ianc e on Sm ith is pe rp le xin g and una va ili ng. T he se ct ionof the 5 18 Ro sw el l Co de unde r w hic h the de fe ndant w as co nvi ct ed , Se ct ion 10 -4 8, p ara lle ls 19 Se ct ion30- 22- 1( D ). T he Ro sw el l C ode c ont ai ns a se parate se ct ion

—S ec tio n 10

- 20 49—that c ri m ina liz es “ el udi ng an of fi ce r” a nd c ont ai ns, ve rb at im , the langua ge of 21 Section 30-22-1(B). 25 1 of R osw el l v

. Sm ith , 200 6- N MC A -0 40, ¶ 5, 139 N

. M. 381, 133 P. 3d 271 (a ff irm ing 2 the defen d an t ’s conviction under Roswell’ s “ obstructin g an officer ” ordinance, 3 Ro sw el l, N

. M. , Co de of O rd inanc es c h. 10, a rt

. 1, § 10 -4 8 ( 1999 ), w hic h is e qui va le nt 4 to Secti on 3 0- 22- 1( A ), ( D ), ba se d onthe de fe ndant’ s r ef usa l t o le av e a fa st- fo od 5 restaurant parking lot after being ordered to do so by an officer ). While it is true that 5 6 one ( an d th e St at e’ s pr ef er re d) de fi nit ionof

“ ev ad e” is “ to avoi d do ing ( som et hin g 7 re qui re d) , ” the se ca se s ill ustrate tha t our co urts int er pr et a re fu sa l to do s om et hi ng 8 required as constitutin g “ resisting” not “ evading” an offi ce r, which violates 9 Subsection (D), not (B). 10 { 41} In sum , understood tem porally and geospatially , vio lations o f Subsection (B) 11 an d Su b s ec t i o n (D) are distin guish able based on at what point in an encoun ter a 12 defendant first begins to exh ibit resis tant condu ct. A def endant who is not y et 13 phy sic al ly

c ap ab le of

be ing appr eh en de d and who a tte m pts to avoi d a

ppr eh en sio n by 14 tr y ing to ev acu at e him se lf f ro m the pr es en ce of

a n of fi ce r is m or e lik el y

to be in 15 vi ol at io n of Subs ect io n (B). By co nt ras t, a d efen da nt who is effec ti ve ly “ co rn ered ,” 16 i. e. , w hose appr eh en sio n is im m ine nt, but w ho, none the le ss, ch oose s to ch al le nge or26

1 fo re sta ll his a rr es t— ei the r by phy si cal ba tte ry , r ef

usi ng t o c om

ply w ithor de rs , or 2 verbally

—violates Subs ection (D)

. 3 { 42} W e tur

n, now , to the e vid en ce in thi s c as e re gard ing Defendan t’ s c onvi ct ion 4 un de r Co un t 2. T he S ta te r el ie s e xc lus ive ly on e vid en ce r el at ed

to the te le phon ic 5 int er act io n be tw ee n D ef en dant and D et ec tiv e D ow ns t o e sta bli sh a vio la tio n of 6 Se ct ion30- 22- 1( B)

. S pe ci fi ca lly , the S ta te a rg ue s th at D ef en dant’ s “ re fu s[ al ] to 7 co m ply ” w ith D et ec tiv e D ow ns’ or de rs to sur re nde r co nst itu te d e va sio n of D et ec tiv e 8 Dow ns. W e disagree. 9 { 43} D ef

en dant’ s e nti re in ter ac tio n w ithD et ec tiv e D ow ns o cc ur re d vi a te le phon e 10 an d la ste d so m ewhe re be tw ee n f ive an d ten m inu te s, ac co rd ing to D ef en dant, a nd o ne 11 hour , a cc or din g to D et ec tiv e D ow ns. D et ec tiv e D ow ns t es ti fie d that the r ea son his 12 ca ll w ithD ef

en dant e nde d w as that the ba tte ry in D ef en dant’ s ph one die d. D et ec tiv e 13 D ow ns f

urthe r testif

ie d th at , dur ing the c our se of the c al l, D ef

en dant a gr ee d on 14 pe rh ap s tw o or thr ee oc ca sio ns to surr en de r to p oli ce . A lth oughD ef en dant u lti m at el y 15 did not w ill ing ly sur

re nde r to pol ic e, w e be lie ve the fa ct tha t D ef en dant rep eat ed ly 16 agreed to surrender, coupled with his con tinued p resence in the club, is evidence that 17 he la ck ed

the r equis ite int en t t o “ fl ee , a tte m pt t o e va de , or

e va de ” D et ec tiv e D ow ns 18 unde r Su

bse ct ion( B)

. Whi le ref

usi ng t o c om

ply w ithD et ec tiv e D ow ns’ or de rs to 19 su rren de r m ay

ha ve co ns ti tu te d “ res is ti ng ” u nd er o urcas e la w, se e D iaz , 199 5-27

1 NMC A- 137, ¶¶ 4, 16-23, in this case we do not believe that this cond uct alone was 2 suf fi ci en t to con vic t D ef

en dant a s c harg ed

. A nd w e re ite rate that the re w as no 3 ev ide nc e pr es en te d to sugg es t tha t De fe ndant sur re pti tio usl y tr ie d to e sc ap e fr om the 4 A ri d C lub , suc h a s ou t the ba ck or sid e door , in or de r to e va de a rr es t. W e co nc lud e 5 that the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e viden ce to con vic t D ef en dant o f fl ee ing , e va din g, or 6 atte m pti ng t o e va de D et ec tiv e D ow ns. 7 { 44} Whil e the S ta te a cknowled ge s tha t the j ur y ins tr uc tio ns a llo w ed

the j ur y to 8 co nvi ct D ef en dant of Co unt 2 ba se d one ith er his int er ac tio n w ithD et ec tiv e D ow ns 9 or O ff ic er Sava ge , the S ta te , in its br ie fi ng, poi nts to no e vid en ce r el at ed to 10 De fendant’ s interactions w ith O ffice r Savage that would supp ort convictio n u nder 11 Section 30-22-1(B). Our reviewof the rec ord likewise indicates that the prosecutor, 12 in h er c los ing ar gum en t, fo cu se d onthe f ac t tha t D et ec tiv e D ow ns and O ff ic er S av ag e 13 “ iss ue d c om

m an ds t o [ D ] ef

en dant” a nd tha t D ef

en dant “ didn’ t c om

ply ” to s uppo rt

a 14 co nvi ct ionund er

Co unt 2. E ve n vi ew ed in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to sus ta ini ng the 15 j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t, w e ar e una

ble to id en ti fy fa ct s th at

sup port a

c onvi ct ionf

or f le ei ng, 16 evading, or attem

pting to evade Of

ficer Savage. 17 { 45} The record refle cts that Of ficer Savage, a m em

ber of the La s Cruces Po l ice 18 De partm ent’ s K- 9 unit , e nt er ed t h e Arid Club after the S WAT team m ade contact 19 w ithD ef

en dant. A lon g w ithoth er

of fi ce rs , O ff

ic er S av ag e com

m an de d De fe ndant t o28

1 sur re nde r. H e dir ec te d D ef

en dant a lso to put

do wn th e nunc huc ks, a nd D ef en dant 2 co m pli ed

. D ef

en dant w as the n gi ve n c onf lic tin g or de rs , inc lud ing to “ ge t on the 3 fl oor , ” on the one hand, a nd t o “ [c o] m e to u s[ , ] ” on the oth er hand. D ef

en dant d id n ot 4 co m ply w ithe ith er

c om m an d. O ff

ic er S av ag e te sti fi ed

th at “ [ e ] v e n t u a l l y , v e r y q uic kly 5 a plan wa s put to gether for use of force. A bean bag shotg un along with the K -9 wa s 6 goi ng t o be use d to ta ke the subj ec t into cu sto dy

. ” D ef en dant w as fi rs t “ en ga ge d w ith 7 several bean b ag rounds in the legs” which w ere ineffec tive. O ffice r Savage’ s K- 9 8 w as the n giv ena n “ ap pr eh en sio n c om m an d. ” A ft er

that, D ef en dant p ic ke d up ac ha ir 9 an dth re w i ti n t h e d i re ct i o n o f t h e d o g . Th e K -9 t h en “ we n ti n fo r a n en g ag emen t [. ]” 10 D ef en dant w as “ ki ck in g and stri kin g a t the dog a s th e SWA T te am m ad e en tr

y a nd 1 1 mo v e dt o w a r d s [ D e f

e n d a n t ]. ” I n t h e p r o c e s s o f De f e n d a n tb e i n g t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y, 12 Of ficer Savage’ s dog bit De fendant and Def endant was taser ed. A ll of this transpi red 13 in a ppr oxi m at el y

f ive to ei ght

m inu te s. 14 { 46} Based on these facts, t h er e is insu fficient evidence to support a finding that 15 D ef en dant “ fl ed , a tte m

pte d to ev ad e, or ev ad ed ” O ff ic er S av ag e. D ef

en dant’ s a ct ion s 16 m or e cl ose ly

r es em ble c ondu ct

that w e ha ve pr ev iou sly

state d c onst itu te s “ re sis tin g” 17 anof fi ce r in v iol at ionof

S ubsecti on (D). The a ct

of thr ow ing ac ha ir , kic kin g, a nd 18 str iki ng a t O ff

ic er S av ag e’ s K-9— ana ct

of dir ec t ph y sic al c onf

ro nta tio n and 19 en ga ge m en t— is m or e sim ilar to k ic kin g a t an of fi ce r w hil e re sis ti ng be in g put in a29

1 pol ic e car lik e in Co tto n . See 201 1- N MC A -0 96, ¶ 23. A ddi tio na lly , qui te the opp osi te 2 of f le ei ng the of

fi ce rs ( an d th e K -9 ), D ef en dant s tay ed

e xa ct ly w he re he w as a nd 3 m ad e n o at t emp tt o l ea v e. Wit h re s p ec t t o re fu s i n g t o co m p l y wi t h Of

fi ce r S av ag e’s 4 com m ands that he surrender, a gain we have held that re fusing to com ply with an 5 of fic er’s o rd er vi ol at es Sect io n 30 -2 2- 1( D), res is ti ng an off ic er. See, e. g. , D iaz , 199 5- 6 NMC A- 137, ¶¶ 4, 16-23. W e d o not believe that De fendant’ s failure to follo w O ffice r 7 Savage’ s orders—particularly when O ffice r Savage conceded t h at De fendant wa s 8 be ing giv enc onf

lic tin g c om m an ds— co nst itu te d e va sio n or a tte m pte d e va sio n of 9 Of ficer Savage. 10 { 47} It m atte rs not w he the r D ef en dant w as “ re sis tin g” be ca use he “ fe ar ed

f or [ his ] 11 life” an d wa s de fe ndi ng h im se lf a s he c la im s, or

be ca use he w as c onf

use d by the 12 conflicting comm ands, or beca use he sim

ply did not want to surrender. The burden 13 wa s on the State to prove that Def endant “ fled, attem

pted to evade, or evaded” O ffice r 1 4 S a v a g e . T h e S t a t e f a i l e dt o c a rry

i t s b u r d e n , a n df

o r t h a tr e a s o n w e r e v e rs e 15 D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionund er Co unt 2 and r em an d f

or r es en te nc ing

. 16 C . Th er e Was S uf fi ci en t Ev id en ce For t he Ju ry t o C on vic t D ef en da ntof 17 Be in g a F el on in P oss es sio n of a F ir ea rm in V iol at ion of S ec ti on 30- 7- 16 18 { 48} Be ca

use D ef en dant sti pul at ed to be ing a co nvi ct ed f el on, the c ri tic al e le m en t 19 that the S tate was r equir ed to pr ove in or de r fo r the j ur y to co nvi ct

D ef en dant o f30

1 vio la tin g S ec tio n 30 -7 -1 6( A ) w as tha t De fe ndant “ poss es se d a fir earm ” on or about 2 Feb ru ary 25 , 20 12

. See UJI 1 4- 70 1 NM RA. 3 { 49} “ Po ss es si on ” m ay be act ua l o r co ns tru ct iv e. See U JI 14- 130 N MR A

. A pe rs on 4 is in act ua l p os se ss io n o f a fi rear m when , “ on th e o ccas io n i n q ue st io n, h e kno ws 5 w ha t [ the f

ir earm ] is, he kno w s it

is on h is p er son or

in his prese nce[ , ] a nd h e 6 ex er ci se s c ontro l ov er it

. ” U JI 14- 130. A lte rn at ive ly , the S ta te m ay pr oc ee d ona 7 t h e o ry o f

c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n , w h e r e b y i tmu s tp r o v e t h a t , “[ e ]v e n i f t h e [ f i r e a rm] 8 is n ot i n [ D ef

en dant’ s] phy sic al pr es en ce , . . . he kno w s w ha t i t i s and whe re it is an d 9 he exercises c ontrol ov er it. ” Id

. I n th e ca se of

c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on, w e “ m ust be 1 0 ab le t o a rt i c u l a t e a r e a s o n ab l e a n a l y s i s t h a t t h e f a c t

- f i n d e r m i g h t h a v e use d to 1 1 d et er m i n e k n o wl ed g e a n dco n trol.” S ta te v . G arc ia , 2005-NMS C-017, ¶ 13, 138 N. M. 12 1, 116 P.3d 72 (alter ation, internal quotation m arks, and citation om itted). U nder 13 ei the r ana ct

ua l poss es sio n or co nstru ct ive poss es sio n the or y , the tw o ke y

e le m en ts 14 th e St at e m

us t es tabl is h are kn owl ed ge an d c on tro l. See U JI 14- 130. T he S ta te m ust 15 pr ov e th atth e d efen da nt kn ows of t he “ pr es en ce and ch arac te r of th e it em po ss es se d.” 16 G arc ia , 2005-NM SC -017, ¶ 14 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 17 K now le dge m ay

be pr ove d by

c ir cu m stanti al e vid en ce , a nd the j ur y is pe rm itte d to 18 dr aw a rea so nabl e in fere nc e o f kn owl ed ge . Id

. ¶ 1 5. Cont rol m ay

also be established 19 by drawi ng reas on ab le in fere nc es fro m cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Id

. ¶¶ 2 0- 22 . A31

1 defendant’ s ability

to exercise control over am m uniti on m ay give r ise to an inference 2 of co nt ro l o ve r a fi rear m

th atcan ut il iz e th atam

m un it io n. Id

. ¶ 22. 3 { 50} In this case, the St at e had sufficient evidence to proceed and secure a 4 co nvi ct ionund er

the the or y of e ith er a ct ua l or co nstru ct ive poss es sio n. A r ea sona ble 5 j ury could have found that De fendant’ s poss ession o f the fir earm wa s established 6 through the testim ony of D etective D owns. D etectiv e D owns testified on direct 7 ex am inatio n th at

D ef en dant t old

him that he w as ar

m ed w ith a gun. D et ec tiv e D ow ns 8 further testified that Brandon Chandler, the volu nteer w ho was w orking at the sn ack 9 bar at the A ri d C lub on the da te in que sti on, tol d him ove r the pho ne that D ef en dant 10 ha d agun . I f the j ur

y ch ose to be lie ve D et ec tiv e D ow ns, his te sti m ony w as suf fi ci en t 11 to p ro ve be y ond a re as ona ble doub t tha t De fe ndant h ad kno w le dge a nd c ontro l, a nd 12 the re by

pos se ssi on o f a gun on F eb ru ar y 25, 201 2. 13 { 51} Ther e w as addition al evidence fr om which a r easonable j u ry c o uld in fer 14 D ef en dant’ s po sse ssi on o f a fi re ar m . P oli ce r ec overed a ha ndgun in sid e the c lub , 15 sittin g on a countertop within arm ’ s reac h of wher e D efendant adm itted he had been 16 sittin g and j ust

f ee t f ro m w he re pol ic e ap pr eh en de d D ef en dant. This w as suf

fi ci en t 17 ev ide nc e to ci rc um stanti al ly es ta bli sh D ef en dant’ s ab ili ty to e xe rc ise c ontro l ov er the 18 gun. Police also rec overed forty -five r ound s of am m uniti on f rom insid e the car that 19 D ef en dant dro ve to the A ri d C lub on Fe br uary 25, 2012

. Whil e the car be lon ge d to32

1 D ef en dant’ s th en -g ir lf

ri en d, D ef

en dant a dm itt ed tha t his gir lf ri en d did no t po sse ss a 2 fi re ar m a nd wo uld not ha ve ha d any ne ed fo r the am m uni tio n th at

w as f ound in the 3 car. 4 { 52} Fi na lly , D ef

en dant s ee m s to a rg ue that the re w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce to lin k 5 him , a s op pose d to som eo ne e lse , to the gunf ound a t the c lub be ca

use it w as f ound 6 on a c ount er in an a re a tha t w as ope n to the publ ic

. A s thi s Co urt r ec ogni ze d in Sta te 7 v. Maes , “ [i] n no n- ex cl usi ve a cc es s c as es , the pr obl em the [ s] ta te f

ac es is the 8 al te rn at ive inf

er en ce that so m e oth er

ind ivi dua l wi th acce ss t o th e pr em ise s is 9 responsib le for the pre sence of the contraband.” 2007 -N MCA -089, ¶ 17, 142 N.M. 10 276, 164 P.3d 97 5. Th e pr obl em li es in the f

ac t tha t “ [e ] vid en ce e qua lly c onsi ste nt 11 with two hy

poth eses tends to prov e neither. ” H erron v. Sta te , 199 1- N MS C- 012, ¶ 18, 12 111 N

. M. 357 , 805 P

. 2d 6 24. Y et he re , no e vid en ce e xis ts t o suggestthat the gun 1 3 be l o n g e dt o o r

w a s p o s s e s s e db y

a n y o n e o t h e r

t h a n D e f e n d a n t

. I n s t e a d , D e f

e n da nt 14 testified that Brandon Chandler, the only other pe rs o n in the club with him when 15 pol ic e ar

ri ve d onF eb ru ar

y 25, le ft the c lub be fo re D ef

en dant and d id n ot p la ce the 16 gun pol ic e fo und on the co unt er . F urthe rm or e, li ke in G arc ia , 200 5- N MS C- 017, ¶ 22, 17 wher e th e court held that control over an am m uniti on clip gave rise to a fair inference 18 of c ontro l ov er

the gun in anon -e xc lus ive a cc es s si tua tio n, he re , pol ic e fo und 19 am m uni tio n inD ef

en dant’ s c ar

that bo th m at ch ed

the a m m uni tion found ins ide the33

1 cl ub and w as usa

ble by the ty

pe of gunthat D et ec tiv e D ow ns t es tif ie d th at D ef en dant 2 stated he wa s arm ed with. The jury wa s free to rej ect any inference De fendant offer ed 3 that the gun wa s poss essed by any one other than him self. 4 { 53} Be ca

use “ a re vie w ing c ourt w ill not seco nd-gue ss the j ur

y ’ s de ci sio n 5 co nc er nin g th e cr ed ibi lity

of w itn es se s, r ew ei gh the e vid en ce , or sub sti tut e its 6 j udgm ent for that of the j ury [, ] ” Sta te v . L uc er o , 1994 -N MCA -129, ¶ 10, 118 N. M. 7 696, 884 P

. 2d 11 75 , we co nc lud e tha t the S ta te pr es en te d su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce f

ro m 8 w hic h th e j ur

y c oul d r ea sona

bly inf er that D ef en dant e ith er

a ct ua lly or c onstru ct ive ly 9 poss es se d th e . 22- ca lib er handgun r ec ove re d f

ro m ins ide the c lub

. 10 III . Th e Tr ial C ou rt D id N ot F un da m en ta lly Er r by F ail in g to Gi ve a P or ti on 11 of

t he C on st ru ct ive P oss es sio n Ju ry In st ru ct ion 12 { 54} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed f undam en ta l e rr or

w he n it 13 fa ile d to inc lud e opt ion al langua ge f ro m U JI 14- 130, the de fi nit ion al ins tr uc tio n f or 14 “ poss ession.” W e disagree. 15 { 55} “ T he standard

of r ev ie ww e ap ply

to j ur y ins tr uc tio ns d ep en ds o n w he the r the 16 issue has been preserved.” Sta te v . B en all y , 200 1- N MSC- 033, ¶

12, 131 N

. M. 258 , 17 34 P.3 d 1134. “ If

the e rr or

ha s be enpr es er

ve d w e re vie wthe ins tr uc tio ns f or 18 reversible er

ror. ” Id

. If a part y fai ls to “ ob

ject t o t he jury in st ru ct io ns as g iv en , . . . we 19 onlyr e vi e w

f or f undam ental err or.” Cu nni ngha m , 200 0- N MS C- 009, ¶ 8. “ U nde r both 20 standards we seek to determ ine whether a reasonabl e juror would have been confused34

1 or m isdirected by

the j ury instruction .” B e n a lly , 200 1- N MS C- 033, ¶ 12. Be ca use 2 D ef en da nt f a i l e d t o o b

j e c t t o t h e i n s t r

u c t i o n s g i v e n a t t r i a l , D e f e n d a n t f a i l e dto 3 p r e s e r v e th is is su e, an d we r ev ie w forfun da m en ta l erro r on ly. Se e Sta te v . V are la , 4 1999 -N MSC- 045, ¶ 11, 128 N. M. 454, 993 P. 2d 1280 (“ Or dinarily a defe ndant m ay 5 not ba se ac la im

of e rr or on i nstru ct ion s he or

she re qu es te d or to w hic h he or she 6 m ad e no obj ec tio n. . . . [F ] undam en ta l er ro r ne ed not be pr es er ve d .

. . [ an d] c an not 7 be wa ived.” ( internal quotatio n m arks and citations om itted)). 8 { 56} UJI 14-130 provides that “ [a] person is in possession of ( name of object) w he n, 9 on the oc ca sio n in

que sti on, he kno w s w ha t i t is, he know s it is on his pe rs on o r in h is 10 presence[, ] and he exercises control over it. ” When the theory of possessio n is based 11 on c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on, the ins tr uc tio n pr ovi de s su

ppl em en ta l l an g u a g e th at

“ m ay 12 be used dependi ng on the evidence.” UJI 14-130, Use N ote 2 (e m phasis add ed). 13 T he re a re thr ee state m en ts tha t c anbe used to su ppl em en t the m ai n po sse ssi on 14 instructio n. T he first deals w ith a situatio n wher e the objec t the defendant is accused 15 of possessi ng is no t in his p hy sic al presence, but where he nevertheless exercises 16 control over it. U JI 14-130. The se con d d ea l s with a situation where two or m ore 17 pe op le m ay

be ab le to si m

ul ta ne ou sl y

co ns tru ct iv el y

po ss es s an ob

ject. Id

. The third 18 ex pla ins that “ [a ] pe rs on’ s pr es en ce in the vic ini ty of the obj ec t or h is k now le dge of 19 the existence or t he location of t he objec t is not, by itself, possession .” Id

. In this case,35

1 the dis tr ic t c ourt i nstru ct ed the j ur y as fo llo w s w ith re spe ct to the f el on- in- poss es sio n 2 charge: 3 For y ou to find

. . . [D ] efendant guiltyof poss ession of a fire arm 4 by

a fel on as c harg ed

in [C ] ount

1, the [ S] ta te m

ust pr ove to y our 5 sa tis fa ct ionbe y ond a re as ona ble doub t ea chof

the f oll ow ing e le m en ts 6 of the crim e: 7 1

. [ D ]e f e n d a n tp o s s e s s e daf

i r e a rm; 8 2. [D ] ef en dant, in the pr ec ed ing te n y ears , w as c onvi ct ed a nd 9 sent en ce d t o one or m ore y ears im prisonm ent by

a court of the U nited 10 St at es or

by ac our t of a ny state ; and 11 3. T his ha ppe ne d in N ew Me xic o on or ab out the 25th day

of 12 Fe br

uary , 201 2. 13 See U JI 14- 701. 14 { 57} In addition to this elem ental instructio n, th e d istrict court instructed the jury as 15 follows with re spect to the definitio n of “ poss ession”: 16 A pe rs on i s inpos se ssi on o f a fi re ar m w he n, on the oc ca sio n in 17 que sti on, h e know s w ha t i t i s, he kno w s it is on h is p er son or

in his 18 pr es en ce [, ] a nd h e ex er ci se s c ontro l ov er it

. 19 E ve n if

the obj ec t i s not in hi s phy sic al pr es en ce , he is in 20 poss es sio n if

he kno w s w ha t it is an d w he re it is an d he ex er ci se s c ontro l 21 ove r it. 22 { 58} The di str i c tc ourti nc l ud e d t he l a t t e r s t a t e m e nt

e ve n t ho ug h t he e vi de nc e 23 showed that Def

endant was, in fact, in the phy sical p resence of the gun. The district 24 co urt, how ev er , did

not inc lud e the thi rd supp le m en ta l sta te m en t re gard ing pr oxi m ity36

1 to the obj ec t: “ A pe rs on’ s pr es en ce in the vic ini ty of the obj ec t or h is k now le dge of 2 the e xis te nc e or

the loc at ionof

the obj ec t i s no t, by its el f, poss es sio n. ” U JI 14- 130. 3 D ef en dant f ai le d to obj ectto the ins tr uc tio n, inc lud ing the om iss ionof the 4 “ pr oxi m ity ” st at em en t, de spi te the c ourt’ s e xpr es s in vit at ion s to r eg ist er a ny 5 obj ec tio ns t o pr opos ed ins tr uc tio ns and to sub m it co m pe tin g in str

uc tio ns. Be ca

use 6 D e f e n d a n tf a i l e d t o p r e s e rv e t h e mat t e r , we r e v i e wf o r f u n d a men t a l e rr o r

o n l y. 7 { 59} W e be ginour

r ev ie wby

not ing that i n State v . B arber , our S upr em e Co urt he ld 8 that i t wa s not fund am en ta l er ro r to fa il to give an y

part of the de fi nit ion al ins tr

uc tio n 9 fo r poss es sio n. 200 4- N MS C- 019, ¶ 1, 135 N

. M. 621, 92 P. 3d 6 33. I n Barber , li ke in 10 thi s c as e, the de fe ndant’ s tr ia l c ounsel fai le d to r eque st a j ur y ins tr uc tio n de fi nin g 11 po ss es si on . Barber

w as a ca se de al ing w ith poss es sio n of ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce , in 12 whi ch cas e UJI 14 -3 13 0 NMRA rat he r th an UJ I 1 4

- 1 3 0 app li es . See U JI 14- 3130 13 co m m . c m t. ( “ T his ins tr

uc tio n m ust be g iv en if

pos se ssi on i s iniss ue a nd i ts u se 14 replace s UJI 14-130 which should not be used in controlled sub stance cases. ”). 15 H ow ev er , f

or our pur pose s, thi s di sti nc tio n does not m atte r be ca

use the ins tr

uc tio ns 16 ar e, fo r al l inte nts an d purp ose s, ide nti ca l, an d the co urt’ s r ea soni ng i n Barber is what 17 m at te rs he re. 18 { 60} The Barber

c o u rte x p l a i n e dt h a td e f i n i t i o n a l i n s t r

u c t i o n s a r e n o ta l w a ys 19 es se nt ia l, see 2004 -N MSC- 019, ¶ 25, and held that failing to g i v e a d efin ition al37

1 ins tr uc tio n w as not fundam en ta l er ro r be ca use “ the m iss ing de fi nit ionof pos se ssi on 2 d o es n o ti m

p l i ca t e a cr i t i ca l d et er m i n at i o n ak i n t o a mis s i n g el emen t s i n s t ru ct i o n [. ]” 3 Id

. ¶ 2 6 (in ternal quotation m arks and citation om itted). N otably , the def initio nal 4 ins tr uc tio n a t i ssu e in Barber wa s m andatory in a case wher e p ossessi on was an issue, 5 see U JI 14- 3130 co m

m . cm t. (“ [t ]his in struc tio n must be given if pos se ssi on i s in 6 issue” (em

phasis add ed)), wher eas U JI 14-130 p ro v i d es that the supp lem ental 7 in st ru ct io ns are o pt io na l. See U JI 14- 130, U se N ote 2 (“ O ne or m or e of the f oll ow ing 8 br ac ke te d se nte nc es may be used depending on the evidence.” ( em phasis add ed)). 9 { 61} In a cas e s uc h a s t hi s, “ w e m us tp l a c e a l l t he f

a c t s a nd c i r c um st a nc e s under 10 cl ose sc ru tin y

to se e w he the r the m iss ing ins tr uc tio n c au se d su chc onf

usi on tha t the 11 j ur y c oul d have c onvi ct ed [the d] ef en dant bas ed uponade fi ci en t un de rs tandi ng o f the 12 l e ga l m e a ni ng o f

p os se ss i ona s a n e ss e nt i a l e l e m e nt o f t he c r im e. ” Barber , 200 4- 13 N MS C- 019, ¶

25. H er e, if

the S ta te ha d r el ie d so le ly on D ef en dant’ s prox im ity to the 14 gun fo und ins ide the c lub —i

. e. , the fa ct that the c ha ir

he w as sittin g inw as dir ec tly 15 in f ro nt o f the gunthat po lic e fo und on the c ount er top ins ide the c lub —i t m ay ha ve 16 been err or to fail to give the “ proxim ity ” instruction b ecause the j ury m ay have been 17 co nf use d an d e r r o n e o u s ly e qua te d “pr oxi m ity ” w ith“ poss es sio n. ” H ow ev er , the S ta te 18 pr es en te d othe r ev ide nc e unr el at ed to D ef en dant’ s phy sic al pr oxi m ity to the gunf

ro m 19 w hic h th e j ur

y co uld ha ve re as ona

bly co nc lud ed tha t De fe ndant p oss es se d th e gun.38

1 First, De tective Dow ns testified that Defe ndant to ld him over the phone that he was 2 arm ed with a gun. S econd, D etective D owns testified that Brandon Chandler stated 3 to h im ove r the pho ne that D ef

en dant ha d a gun. Fr om thi s ev ide nc e, the St at e co uld 4 have proceeded on a theory of actual possession , in w hich case the trial court’ s failure 5 to g ive aportio n of

the c onstru ct ive pos se ssi on d ef ini tio n w as not

e rr or a t a ll. 6 { 62} W e al so n ote that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in str uc tio n pr ope rl y

inf orm ed the j ur y that, 7 in o rd er

to co nvi ct D ef

en dant of poss es sio n, it ha d to fi nd both tha t he kne ww ha t the 8 gun was and that he exercised control over it. The o m i t t ed i nstruction of w hich 9 D ef en dant n owc om

pla ins doe s not add any

thi ng tha t wa s not alr ea dy ad dr es se d by 10 the m ai n de fi nit ion al ins tr uc tio n. T o instr

uc t the j ur

y that “ [a ] pe rs on’ s pr es en ce in 11 the vic ini ty

of the obj ec t or

his kn ow le dge of

the e xis te nc e or

the loc at ionof

the 12 obj ec t i s no t, by

it se lf , pos se ss io n[ ,] ” UJI 14- 130, sim ply r es ta te s w ha t the m ai n 13 ins tr uc tio n pr ovi de s: tha t on e can on ly be f ound to be in poss es sio n of som ethin g if 14 he both “ know s” w ha t th e ob je ct is and “ exercises control over it.” Id

. W e ar e 15 satisfied that, even under a c onstructiv e possessio n theory , it w as not fundam ental 1 6 e rr o r f o r t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtt o f

a i l t o p r o v i d e t h e j u r y w i t h t h e o p t i o n a l “ p r o x i mi t y” 17 langua ge of

U JI 14- 130.39

1 IV. The T rial Cour t Di d Not Abu se Its D iscretion b y Allow ing the State to 2 In tr od uc e Ev id en ce of D ef en da nt ’s P ending La w su itA gai ns t th e C it y of 3 Las Cru ces 4 { 63} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

whe n it a ll ow ed

the S ta te to 5 introdu ce the f

act that D efendant has a pending lawsuit agains t t h e Ci ty of L as 6 Cr uc es . Whil e w e fi nd the St at e’ s re spon siv e ar gum en t so m ewha t unpe rs ua siv e an d 7 th e rec or d sc an t as to th e di st ric t co ur t’s jus ti fic at io n fo r al lo win g th e ev id en ce, we 8 hol d th at

it w as not a n a buse of dis cr et ion an d tha t, ev en as sum ing it w as , a ny e rr or 9 in a llo w ing e vid en ce of D ef en dant’ s pe ndi ng l aw sui t w as harm le ss. 10 { 64} W e re vie wde ci sio ns to adm it or ex cl ude ev ide nc e unde r an ab use of dis cr et ion 11 st an da rd

. See State v. Stampley , 199 9- N MS C- 027, ¶ 37, 127 N

. M. 426, 982 P. 2d 4 77; 12 G arc ia , 2005 N MC A -0 42, ¶ 38. A tr ia l c ourt a buse s it s di sc re tio n “ w he n th e ru lin g 1 3 i s cl ea rl y ag ai n s tt h e l o g i c a n def fe ct o f t h e f

ac t s an dci rc u m s t an ce s o f t h e c as e. We 14 cannot say

the [district] court abused i t s d i s cretion by its ruling unless we can 15 charac terize [the ruli ng] as clear ly untenable or not justified by rea son.” R ojo , 199 9- 16 NMS C-001, ¶ 41 (internal quot ation m arks and citations om itted). 17 { 65} At trial, the prosecutor’ s first questio n of De fendant on c ross-exam ination wa s 18 whe t h er h e had “ filed som e sort of law suit agains t the City of L as Cruce s.” A fter 19 D ef en da nt res po nd edaffi rm at iv el y an d a ns wered the pr ose cutor ’ s ne xt q ue sti on a bout 20 w he re the law sui t wa s fil ed , standby co unse l r eque ste d abe nc h c onf er en ce w he re he16 The S tate attem pts to characterize De fendant’ s specific refere nce to the nature 6 1 7 o f h i s cl ai m s as h av i n g “ o p en ed t h e d o o r t o t h e s ub je ct m at t er o f t h e l i t i g at i o n .” We 18 do n ot ag re e w iththe S ta te ’ s c hara ct er iz at ion

. T he r ec or d r ef le ct s th at D ef en dant, in 19 fa ct , r es ist ed

dis cu ssi ng the law sui t and only w en t into de ta ils w he n instr uc te d to do 20 so b y the dis tr ic t c ourt. 40 1 m ad e a re le va nc y -b as edob jecti on to th e p ro se cu to r’s qu es ti on s ab ou t t he laws ui t. Th e 2 prosecutor responded, “ [g] oes to bias, Your Ho n o r. It’ s absolu tely relevant if a 3 witness has filed a law suit. It has a c onnection to t h e ca s e. ” The district court 4 overruled the objec tion b ut cautioned th e p rosecutor “ not to belabor the poin t.” Af ter 5 reestablishing that De fendant had filed a law suit agains t the Ci ty of L as Cruce s 6 re la te d to the inc ide nt at the A ri d C lub , the pr ose cu tor as ke d De fe ndant w ha t kind o f 7 dam ages he w as seeking. D efendant initially resisted ans we ri n g an d stated, “ I fe el 8

. . . that ha s no thi ng t o do w iththi s c as e. ” Aft er the tr ia l j udge ins tr

uc te d hi m

to 9 an sw er , D ef

en dant b eg ande sc ri bin g hi s c la im s, w hic h in cl ude d e xc es siv e fo rc e an d 10 false im

prisonm ent, r ather than the dam ages De fendant soug h t

. Th e district court 6 11 stepped in to clarif

y the questio n and explained to De fendant that the prosecutor was 12 as kin g hi m

to state the a m ount of

m one tary da m ag es he c la im ed

to be appr opr ia te in 13 his c ivi l su it. D ef

en dant d is cl os ed tha t he a ske d f or e igh ty m ill iondol lars f

or his 14 cl ai m s r el at ed

to the Fe br

uary 25, 2012 , inc ide nt. T he pr ose cu tor the n m ove d onto 1 5 ad i f f e r e n tl i n e o f i mp e a c h men t qu e s t i o n i n g r e l a t e dt o De f e n d a n t ’s c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry.41

1 { 66} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

e vid en ce of

his pe ndi ng c iv il law sui t r el at ed to the 2 ev en ts o f Fe br

uary 25, 201 2, w as not

r el ev an t t o pr ovi ng the c harg es a ga ins t hi m a nd, 3 the re fo re , w as ina dm iss ibl e. H e furthe r ar gue s on ap pe al , tho ugh he did not pr es er ve 4 t h e a r g u men ta tt r i a l , t h a te v i d e n c e o f t h e l a w s u i twa s “ d i s t r a c t i n g t o t h e ju ry, 5 re sul tin g in co nf

usi on of the iss ue s and unf ai r pr ej udi ce . ” A s a lr ea dy m en tio ne d, the 6 pr ose cu tor ’ s coun te rarg um en t to De fe ndant’ s re le vanc y ch al le nge at tr ia l wa s si m ply 7 that the e vid en ce “ [g ] oe s to bia s. ” O nc e the e vid en ce w as a dm itt ed , the pr ose cu tor 8 u s ed i tt o ar g u e i n cl o s i n g t h at “ [D ef en d an t ] h a s a b i as b ec au s e n o w h e t h i n k s h e’s 9 goi ng t o ge t a big pay ch ec k. Appare ntl y , he thi nks if he ’ s not conv ic te d, tha t wi ll he lp 10 his law sui t. ” T he pr ose cu tor a lso tol d th e j ur

y , “ y ou c anf

ac tor that i n to the s or t of 11 bi as [Defen da nt ] m ig ht ha ve forth e way th athe tes ti fie d h ere t od ay .” 12 { 67} T he S ta te cl arifi es it s arg um en t onappe al a s be ing that, be ca use of the 13 conflicting evid ence w ith which the j ury wa s presented, e vidence of De fendan t ’s 14 lawsuit wa s “ relevant for the purp o s e o f assistin g the jury in determ ining what 15 ac tua lly

ha ppe ne d at the A ri d Cl ub on Fe br uary 25, 2012

. ” T he St at e re as ons that the 16 ev ide nc e w oul d a ssi st the j ur y w ith“ reco nc ili ng . . . c om pe tin g narr at ive s” a nd 17 “ w oul d have be en he lpf ul to the j ur

y ’ s a sse ssm en t of

w itn es s c re dib ili ty [. ] ” E ch oin g 18 the pr ose cu tor ’ s c los ing arg um en t, the S ta te a lso a rg ue s th at “ [h ] ad [ D ef en dant] 19 successfully

persuaded the j ury that his version of the events in questi on was the m ore42

1 a c c u r a t e o n e , h e c o u l d h a v e c o l l e c t e d p o t e n t a m m u n i t i o n f o r u s e i n h i s li tig at ion 2 ag a i n st th e Ci ty.” Whi le th e St at e’s br oa de r arg um en ts are u nc on vi nc in g, we 3 ge ne ra lly

a gr ee w iththe Sta te that the e vid en ce w as a dm iss ibl e fo r the pur pose of 4 a t t a c k i n g De f

e n d a n t ’s c r e d i b i l i t y. 5 { 68} Inor de r to b e adm iss ibl e, ev ide nc e m ust be r el ev an t. Ru le 11- 402 N MR A ; see 6 State v. Christopher , 198 0-NMS C-085, ¶ 12, 94 N. M. 648, 615 P. 2d 26 3. “ Evidence 7 is r el ev an t i f [( a) ] it

ha s an y te nde nc y to m ak e a fa ct

m or e or le ss p ro bable than it 8 w oul d be w ith out

the e vid en ce , a nd [ (b )] the f ac t i s of c onse que nc e in d et er

m ini ng 9 the a ct ion

. ” Ru le 11- 401 N MR A

. “ A ny doubt whe the r the ev ide nc e is re le vant s houl d 10 be resolved in favor of adm issib ility .” St at e v. Bal de ra ma , 2004 -N MS C- 008, ¶ 23, 11 135 N

. M. 329 , 88 P

. 3d 8 45. 12 { 69} “ [W ] he n ade fe ndant t es tif ie s, he is subj ec t, w ith in the lim its of ce rt ai n r ule s, 13 to cross-exam ination the sam e as any other witness.” State v. G utierrez , 200 3- 14 NMC A- 077, ¶ 13, 133 N .M. 797, 70 P .3d 797. The gener al rule is that the “ [s] tate has 15 a ri ght

to inquir e int o and c om m en t up on the c re dib ili ty of th e de fe ndant a s a 16 witness.” Sta te v . H

ox sie , 19 84 -NMSC -0 27 , ¶ 6, 10 1 N.M. 7, 6 77 P.2d 62 0, overruled 17 on o the r gr ound

s by Gallegos v. Citizens Ins. Agency , 198 9- N MSC- 055, ¶ 28, 108 18 N

. M. 722 , 779 P

. 2d 9 9. Credi bil ity is “ [t ] he qua lity

that m ak es som ethin g ( as a17 In this case, the prosecutor acknowledged a c r im inal defendant’ s assum ed bias 7 18 w he n sh e ar gue d inc lo sin g th at D ef en dant, “ al so, of

c our se , doe sn’ t w an t t o be 19 co nv ic te d. Th at ’s a na tu ral bi as .” 43 1 witness or s om e evid ence) worthy of belief. ” Black’

s Law D ictiona ry 448 (1 0the d. 2 20 14 ). 3 { 70} Bias is widely

rec ogni zed as bein g o n e way to attack the cre dibil ity of a 4 wit ne ss . See 1 Ken ne th S. Bro un , McC ormick on E

vidence § 33 (7th ed. 2013). “ Bias 5 is a term

used in the ‘ com

m on law of evidence’ to describe the relationship between 6 a party a nd a w itn es s w hic h m igh t l ea d th e w itn ess to sl an t, unc onsc iou sly or 7 otherwise, his testim ony in favor of or a gainst a party .” United S t a t es v. Abel , 469 8 U

. S. 45, 52 ( 1984 ). A c ri m ina l de fe ndant who te st if ie s a t tri al is pr es um ed

to be 9 bi as ed a n d t o h av e an in te res t i n t he ou tc om e o f th e cas e. See U nited Sta tes v. 10 D ic ke ns , 775 F. 2 d 1 056, 1059 (9th Cir. 1985 ) (e xplaini ng that, when a crim inal 11 defendant testifies at trial, “ the defendant’ s bias in hi s own behalf [is] self-e vident”). 7 12 Bi as m ay

als o be in ferr ed fro m “ a wit ne ss ’[s] lik e, di sl ik e, orfear o f a p art y , or b y the 13 wi tness’ [ s ] se lf- int er es t .” Abel , 469 U

. S. a t 52 ( em pha sis a dde d)

. “ Pr oof

of bia s is 1 4 a l mo s ta l w a ys r e l e v a n t b e c au s e t h e ju ry, a s f i n d e r o f f a c ta n dwe i g h e r

o f c r e d i b i l i t y, 15 has histo rically

been entitled to assess all eviden ce which m ight bear on the accurac y 16 and truth of a witness’ [s] testim ony .” Id

. ; se e als o Sta te v . Ch am be rs , 19 86 -NMCA-44

1 006, ¶ 15, 103 N

. M. 784 , 714 P. 2d 588 (“ T es tim ony co nc er nin g bia s an d c re dib ili ty 2 is alway s relevant.” ). 3 { 71} D ef

en dant, ha vin g c hose n to te sti fy , put his c re dib ili ty

in iss ue , m ak ing 4 ev ide nc e re la te d to his c re dib ili ty r el ev an t. T he S ta te use d th e ev ide nc e of 5 De fendant’ s pendin g lawsuit to und erm ine his credibilityby inferr ing th at he had 6 re as on t o be untru thf

ul i n hi s te sti m ony

ba se d onw ha t th e St at e ar gue d w as his 7 int er es t i n ge tti ng “ a big pay ch ec k. ” Be ca use D ef en dant te sti fi ed to the ev en ts at the 8 A ri d C lub on F eb ru ar

y 25, 201 2, a nd b ec au se D ef en dant’ s te sti m ony

w as r el ev an t t o 9 es ta bli shi ng whe the r it w as m or e or le ss p ro bable that he c om m itt ed the c ri m es w ith 10 w hic h he w as c harg ed , it w as w ith in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc re tio n to a llo wthe S ta te 1 1 t o i n t ro du ce ev i d en ce fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f i m p ea ch i n g De fe n d an t ’s t es t i m o n y. W e 12 cannot say , as a m atter of law, that the district court’ s decision to adm it the evidence 13 wa s “ clear ly untenable or not j ustified byre as o n.” R ojo , 199 9- N MS C- 001, ¶ 41 14 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). W e, therefor e, holdthat the district 1 5 co u rtd i dn o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o n i n al l o wi n g l i m i t ed t es t i m o n y re g ar d i n g De fe n d an t ’s 1 6 p e n d i n g l a w s u i ta s awa y o f a t t a c k i n g De f

e n d a n t ’s c r e d i b i l i t y. 17 { 72} A s af

ina l m atte r, w e not e tha t D ef en dant a lso a rg ue s, f

or th e fi rs t t im e on 18 appeal, that the e vidence o f h i s p ending law suit sh ouldhave been excluded under 19 Rule 11-403 NMR

A, which provides that “ [t] he court m ay exclude relevant evidence45

1 if it s pr oba tiv e va lu e is s ubst an tia lly outw ei ghe d by

adange r of

one or m or e of the 2 f o l l o w i n g : u n f

a i r p r e ju d i c e , c o n f

u s i n g t h e i s s u e s , mi s l e a d i n g t h e ju ry, u n du e d e l a y, 3 w as tin g ti m e, or

ne ed le ssl y

pr es en tin g c um

ula tiv e ev ide nc e. ” Be ca

use D ef en dant 4 fai le d t o t im el y

ob ject on th is gr ou nd at tri al , we wil l reve rs e on th is ba si s on ly if we 5 are “ convin ced that a d m i s sion o f the testim ony constitu ted an injustice that cr eates 6 grave doubts concerning the validit y of the verdict.” Sta te v . B arr aza , 19 90 -NMCA7 026, ¶ 17, 110 N

. M. 45, 791 P. 2d 7 99; se e Sta te v . L uc er o , 1993 -N MS C- 064, ¶¶ 12- 8 13, 116 N

. M. 450 , 863 P

. 2d 10 71 (exp la ini ng tha t a ppe llate c ourts r ev ie wun9 preserved challenges to the adm issio n of evidence for plain err or—m eaning error that 10 “ af fe ct ed subs tanti al ri ght s althoug h the pla in er ro rs w er e not br ough t t o th e atte nti on 11 of the j udge” (alteration, internal quotatio n m arks, and citation om itted)). 12 { 73} D ef

en dant ar gue s tha t the ev ide nc e of his pe ndi ng law sui t was “ hig hly 13 pr ej udi ci al ” be ca

use it te nde d to pa int him as a “ lit igi ous pe rs on an d tr ie d to 14 dem onstrate to the jury tha t the onlyrea son [Def endant] wa s fightin g this case was 15 be ca use of ave nde tta

he ld a ga ins t othe r gove rn m en ta l a ge nc ie s and s o th at he c oul d 16 w in a sig nif ic an t am ount

of m one y . ” G ive n th e oth er e vid en ce in thi s c as e tha t the 17 j ur y c oul d have r el ie d on to c onvi ct D ef en dant— na m el y , the te sti m ony

of D et ec tiv e 18 D ow ns and the phy sic al e vid en ce the St at e pr es en te d—w e ar e not pe rs ua de d that the 19 adm iss ionof

e vid en ce of

D ef en dant’ s pe ndi ng l aw sui t, e ve n if unf ai r, c onf usi ng, a nd46

1 dis tr ac tin g, “ co nst itu te d an in j ust ic e tha t c re at es gr av e doub ts c onc er nin g th e va lid ity 2 of the verdict.” B arr aza , 199 0- N MC A -0 26, ¶ 17. 3 { 74} W e hold that it was neither an abuse of d iscretion nor plain error for the trial 4 co urt t o a dm it ev ide nc e of D ef en dant’ s pe ndi ng l aw sui t. 5 V. The S tate D id N ot Com m it P rosecutorial M isconduct 6 { 75} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

it w as pr ose cu tor ia l m isc onduct , r is in g to the le ve l of 7 fundam en ta l e rr or

f or the pr ose cu tor

to (1 ) re pe at ed ly m entio n D ef en dant’ s c ivi l 8 lawsuit, and (2) fail to call as witnesses t he police officer s who obtained the search 9 warrant f

or De fendant’ s car and arrested D efendant. W e disagree. De fendant failed 10 to o bj ec t a t tri al to co nduc t he nowc hara ct erizes as pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct ; 11 the re fo re , w e w ill r ev ie wD ef en dant’ s pr osec uto ri al m isc ondu ct c la im s f

or 12 fu nd am en ta l erro r on ly. Se e Sta te v . T ruj illo , 200 2- N MS C- 005, ¶ 52, 131 N

. M. 709 , 13 42 P

. 3d 8 14. 14 { 76} “ Pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct ri se s to th e le ve l of f undam en ta l e rr or

w he n it is so 15 egregious and had such a p ersuasive and prej udicial effe ct o n the jury ’ s verdict that 16 the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. A llen , 200 0- N MS C- 002, ¶ 95, 128 17 N

. M. 482 , 994 P

. 2d 7 28 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ T o f ind 18 fundam en ta l e rr or , w e m ust be c onvi nc ed

that the pr ose cu tor ’ s c ondu ct c re at ed a 19 re as ona

ble pr oba bil ity tha t the er

ro r w as asig nif

ic an t f ac tor in the j ur y ’ s de lib er at ion47

1 in relation to the rest o f th e evidence befor e them .” Sta te v . Sos a , 200 9- N MS C- 056, 2 ¶ 35, 147 N. M. 351, 223 P. 3d 34 8 (internal q uotatio n m arks and citations om itted). 3 W e w ill r ev er se aj ur

y ve rd ic t on ly

“ (1 ) w he n gu ilt

is so d oubt fu l a s to sho ck the 4 co nsc ie nc e, or (2 ) w he n th er e ha s be ena n e rr or in the pr oc es s im

pli catin g th e 5 fundam ental integrity

of the j udicial process.” Id

. “ H ow ev er , a n is ol at ed , m ino r 6 im pr opr ie ty or din ar ily

is not suf fi ci en t t o w ar

rant r ev er sa l, be ca

use af ai r tr ia l i s no t 7 necessarily

a perf ect one.” Sta te v . G arv in , 200 5- N MC A -1 07, ¶ 13, 138 N

. M. 164 , 8 117 P.3d 970 (alter ation, internal quotation m arks, and citation om itted). 9 A. The P rosecutor’ s Ref eren ces to De fend ant’s P endin g Law suit A gainst the 10 City of Las Cru ces D id N ot Const itute Pr osecutorial Miscond uct 11 { 77} Ina sse ssi ng whe the r pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct ha s oc curr ed

ba se d on 12 s t atem ents m ade by

a prosecutor at tria l, r eviewing courts are to evaluate a 1 3 p ro s ec u t o r ’s ch al l en g ed s t at emen t s “ o b je ct i v el y i n t h e c o n t ex to f t h e p ro s ec u t o r’s 14 broader ar gum ent and the trial as a whole.” Sosa , 2009-NMSC- 0 5 6 , ¶ 26. W e start 15 fr om the lon g- ac ce pte d pr opos iti on tha t “ [d ] ur ing c los ing a rg um en t, b oththe 1 6 pr os e c u t i o n a n d d e f

e n s e a r e p e rm i t t e d w i d e l a t i tu d e , a n d t h e t r i a l c o u rt h a s w ide 17 discretion in dealing with and controll ing closi ng argum ent[.] ” Sta te v . Sm ith , 200 1- 18 N MS C- 004, ¶

38, 130 N

. M. 117, 19 P

. 3d 2 54 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio ns 19 om itt ed ). “ [R ] em ar

ks b y the pr ose cu tor

m ust be ba se d up on the e vid en ce or be in 20 response to th e defe ndant’s ar gum ent.” Id

. “ It is m isc ondu ct fo r a pr ose cu tor to m ak e48

1 prej udicial statem ents not s uppo rted by evidence.” Sta te v . D uff

y , 199 8- N MS C- 014, 2 ¶ 56 , 12 6 N.M. 1 32 , 96 7 P .2d80 7, ov errul ed on oth er grou nds bySta te v . T ollardo , 3 201 2

- N M S C

- 0 0 8 , 2 7 5 P

. 3 d 1 1 0

. H o w e v e r , “ [ s ] t a t e m e n t s h a v i n g t h e i r b a s i s i n the 4 ev ide nc e, tog ethe r w ithr ea sona ble inf er en ce s to be dr awn ther ef ro m , ar e pe rm iss ibl e 5 and do not warrant re v ersal.” Sta te v . H erre ra , 197 2- N MC A -0 68, ¶ 8, 84 N

. M. 46, 6 499 P.2d 364 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 7 { 78} De fe n d an tar g u es t h at t h e p ro s ec u t o r ’s re p ea t ed re fe re n ce s t o De fe n d an t ’s 8 pe ndi ng c ivi l l iti ga tio n c onst itu te d m isc ondu ct be ca use the li tig at ion“ ha d no be ar ing 9 on the iss ues in this cas e[ and wer e] irrele vant and prejudicial. ” D efendant ignores 10 the fa ct tha t the tr ia l cour t over ru le d his re le vanc y -b as ed obj ec tio n to the intro duc tio n 11 of e vid en ce of

D ef en dant’ s pe ndi ng l aw sui t. T he pr ose cu to r’ s st at em en ts d ur ing 12 cl osi ng and r eb utt al w er e ba se d o n fa ct s sh e ha d e lic ite d f ro m D ef en dant o n c ro ss13 ex am inatio n a ft er

standby c ou ns el ’s obj ec tio n w as ove rr ule d. I n c los ing , the 14 pr ose cu tor

a rg ue d to the j ur y th at D ef en dant “ fi le d alaw sui t, thi nks he ’ s go ing to 15 collect [eighty ] m illion dollars.” T he prosecutor also argued that the jury shou ld infer 16 th atDefen da nt “ ha s a bi as be cau se no w h e th in ks he ’s g oi ng to ge t a b ig pa y ch eck .” 17 D ur ing r eb utt al , she co m m en te d, “ [D ] ef

en dant is the one w ithbia s. [ D ] ef en dant i s th e 18 one who thin ks h e’ s go ing to co lle ct an [e igh ty ] m ill ion dol lar[ ] pay ch ec k f ro m the49

1 City of L as Cruce s.” Nothing in the prosecutor’ s com m ents during closing o r re buttal 2 fell outside of already -adm itted evidence or assum ed fac ts not in evidence. 3 { 79} Beca

use the evidence ref erre d to bythe prosecutor had been 4 adm itt ed

—w he the r er

ro ne ousl y or not —the prose cu tor

w as f re e to c om

m en t onit

. 5 Compare State v. Sant illan es , 197 0- N MC A -003, ¶ ¶ 13- 14, 81 N

. M. 185 , 464 P

. 2d 6 915 (explain ing th at the rem arks of prosecutor during cl o s i n g we re not im proper 7 be cau se th ey were ba se d o n fa ct s i n e vi de nc e), wi th S tat e v. Cu m m ing

s , 1953-NMS C8 008 , ¶ 8, 57 N

. M. 36, 253 P

. 2d 3 21 ( ex pla ini ng tha t “ a state m en t of f ac ts en tir el

y 9 outsi de of the evidence , and hig hly prej udicial to th e acc used, cannot be j ustified as 10 argum ent” (em

phasis add ed)). W e reje ct Defendant’ s claim that his conv iction was 11 ta int ed

by pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct

. 12 B. The S tate D id N ot Com m it Prosecutorial Misconduct by Not C alling the 13 Offic ers Involved in Securing the S earch Warr ant and Ar resting 14 De fend ant 15 { 80} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

the pr ose cu tor

c om m itt ed m isc ondu ct

by f ai lin g to c al l 16 necessary

wit n esses, specif

ically the officer

who signed the affidavit for the sear ch 17 w ar rant f or D ef en dant’ s c ar

a nd the of

fi ce r w ho ar

re ste d D ef

en dant, w hom

D ef en dant 18 ar gue s he w as en tit le d to cr oss ex am ine

. A s this Co urt has ex pla ine d, “ [t ] he de ci sio n 19 to c al l or

not c al l a w itn es s is am atte r of

tr ia l t ac tic s and s tr at eg y

w ith in the c ontro l 20 of counsel.” M

aim ona v. Sta te , 1971 -N MC A -0 02, ¶ 11, 82 N

. M. 281 , 480 P

. 2d 1 71.50

1 Fo r the sam e re as ons tha t our co urts h av e lon g he ld tha t de fe nse c ouns el ’ s f ai lur e to 2 cal l wi tn es se s is an in su ffi ci en t b as is forfin di ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, see 3 id. , w e re

j ec t De fe ndant’ s ar gum en t tha t the pr ose cu tor ’ s dec isi on not to ca ll ce rt ai n 4 w itn es se s c onst itu te d m isc ondu ct

. 5 CON CLU SION 6 { 81} W e hol d th at

th e r e w a s in suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion 7 fo r r es i s t i n g , ev ad i n g , or o b s t ru ct i n g an o ff i ce r un d er Co u n t 2 o f t h e i n d i ct m en t . We 8 af fi rm D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionf

or f el on i n po sse ssion of a

f ir earm , r ev er se his 9 co nvi ct ionund er

Co unt 2, a nd r em an d f

or r es en te nc ing in ac co rd an ce w iththi s 10 opi nio n. 11 { 82} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

12

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ __ 13 J. M ILES HA NISE E, Judge

14 WE CO NCUR:

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 16 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 18 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e