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

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: Ju ne 30, 201 7 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 4662 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 CA RLO S C ARRILL O, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 Br et t R . Lo ve le ss, D ist ri ctJu dg e

12 Robert E . T angora, L .L .C. 13 Robert E . T angora 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 fo r Appe llant

16 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 17 Sri Mullis, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Justice. 3 { 1} T his is a ca

pit al appe al f

ro m the S ec ond Judi ci al Dis tric t C ourt f oll ow ing 4 De fendant Carlos Car rillo’ s convictio ns of the m urders of Christopher Kinney 5 (K inn ey ) an d L yndse y F ro st ( Fr ost ), tam

pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce, a nd b re ak ing a nd 6 entering. D efendant appeals his convictio ns, arguin g that: (1) th e d istrict court err ed 7 in a llo w ing lay

w itn es se s to te sti fy

to ce ll phon e- re la te d e vid en ce w ith re spe ct to the 8 m urder convictions , which, in De fendant’ s view, required a qualified expert; (2) there 9 w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ion s of

m ur de r, tam

pe ri ng 10 with evidence, an d breaking and entering; (3) the State com m itted prosecutorial 11 m iscondu ct when it re peatedly attem pted to adm it statem ents that the dis trict court 12 ha d ruled ina dm iss ibl e pr ior to tr ia l; an d ( 4) c um

ula tiv e er ro r re nde rs the gui lty 13 ve rd ic t un re lia

ble

. Whil e w e ag re e w ith D ef en da nt w ithr es pe ct

to the f ir st i ssu e, in 14 part , w e fi nd tha t i t w as harm le ss e rr or . W e af fi rm D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ion s. 15 I. BACKGRO UND 16 { 2} A t aro und 8:00 a.m . on D ec em be r 4, 201 1, A lbu que rque P oli ce D ep ar tm en t 17 (A PD ) offic ers w ere dispatched to Tiguex Par k in the Old Town are a of A lbuq uerque. 18 T he re , a n A PD of

fi ce r spok e w ith a w itn es s who ha d cal le d 91 1 a ft er not ic ing ablu e 19 Ch ev y

S ilv er ad o pi ck

up tru ck park ed on the str ee t w itham anslu m pe d ov er the2

1 dr ive r’ s se at

. 2 { 3} Af

ter consulting with the w itness, an APD officer approached the truck, w hich 3 h a d t h e d r i v e r ’s s i d e w i n d o w r o l l e d d o w n , a n d s a w a man , l a t e r i d e n t i f i e d a s Ki n n e y, 4 in the dr ive r’ s se at

w ithw ha t a

ppe ar ed to be agun shot

w ound be hin d hi s le ft

e ar . T he 5 AP D off

icer a lso noticed a wom an in the passenger seat who wa s later identified as 6 Kinney ’ s girlfriend, F rost. Both we re unconscious and unrespon sive. 7 { 4} A s part

of the ir inv es tig at ion , the A PD of fi ce rs c an va sse d th e ne ig hbor hood 8 and asked nearby

residents whether they

had heard or seen anything . S om e neighbors 9 reported hearing car s driving down the street and a lou d n o i s e so m etim e betwe en 10 m idn igh t and 4 :00 a. m . Ph y sic al ev ide nc e co lle ct ed fr om the cr im e sc en e inc lud ed a 11 re d c el l ph one be lon gin g to K inn ey , se ve n sh el l c as ing s, an d tw o pr oj ec til es . F our 12 ad dit ion al pr oj ec til es w er e re co ve re d duri ng the auto psy of F ro st. 13 { 5} Based on the injuries to the victim s and the traj ectory of the bullets, the A PD 14 of fi ce rs c onc lud ed

that the sho ote r w as standi ng at the dr ive r’ s sid e of the tr uc k and 15 sho t through the open window or possib ly with the gun held in side the truck, since 16 som e of the ej ected s h el l casi ngs were found in side the vehicle. T he AP D off icers 17 also conclud ed that the victim s did not have an oppo rtunity to defend them selves as 18 there w as no evidence of a struggle, and Kinney ’ s injury wa s from a shot fired at ver

y3

1 cl ose r an ge . F ro st h ad inj ur ie s tha t w en t thr ough he r ha nds an d the top of he r he ad , 2 ind ic at ing that sh e w as tr y ing to pr ote ct he rs el f by co ve ri ng he r he ad w ithhe r hands, 3 an d like ly ha d her he ad dow n duri ng the sho oti ng. T he se c onc lus ion s r eg ar din g th e 4 vic tim s’ inj ur ie s w er e supp orte d by the inf or m at ionpr ovi de d by D r. Ro ss Z um w al t 5 fr om the O ff ic e of the Me dic al I nve sti ga tor a ft er the auto psi es of

the vic tim s. 6 { 6} La ter that m orning, the APD officer s responded to a ca l l t h at a m ale suspect 7 w as a tte m

pti ng t o br eak in to a

c ar park ed a t the G old enP ri de Res ta ur an t onO ld 8 Coors and Central. The witness who called 911 reported that i t look ed like the susp ect 9 w as usi ng the but t of

agunto br eak th e w ind owof the c ar . T he sus pe ct

the n fl ed on 10 fo ot. 11 { 7} Whil e enr out e to the r es taur an t, a n APD of fi ce r m ad e co nta ct

w ithape rs on 12 w ho f it the de sc ri pti on o f the sus pe ct

. S hortly a ft er , an oth er A PD of

fi ce r ar ri ve d and 13 as sis te d ina rr es tin g th e sus pe ct , w ho ide nti fi ed him se lf as Carl os Carr ill o. D ef en dant 1 4 t o l d t h e A P D o f

f i c e r s t h a tt h e c a r

b e l o n g e dt o h i s g i r l f

r i e n d , S h a n t e l l M o n t o ya 15 (M ont oy a) , w ho w as a t w ork a t the r es taur an t, an d tha t he br oke the car w ind oww ith 16 his hands to r etri ev e his c el l ph one f ro m ins ide the ve hic le

. T he A PD of fi ce rs did not 17 not ic e an y inj ur ie s onD ef en da nt’ s hands, a nd d id n ot f ind af ir earm on D ef en dant o r 18 al ong his pos sib le r out es f ro m the re sta ur an t pa rk ing lot

to the int er se ct ionw he re he4

1 w as a rr es te d. D ef

en da nt d id h av e $413 in ca sh, ac el l ph one , a bot tle of c olo gne , a nd 2 a pla sti c ba g c ont ai nin g abr ow n su bst an ce , w hic h D ef

en da nt adm itt ed

w as he ro in b ut 3 w h i c h h e c l a i me dd i dn o tb e l o n g t o h i m. 4 { 8} The A PD officers discovered that Def endant’ s cell phone nu m

ber w as saved 5 in K inney ’ s cell phon e under the nam e “ Los” ( presum ably short for “ Carlos”). Ther e 6 w er e m ult ipl e te xt m es sa ge s onKin ne y ’s c ell p hone that w er e se nt t o “ L os” in the 7 earl y m or nin g ho ur s of

D ec em be r 4, 201 1. T he se te xt m es sa ge s in cl ude d: 8 2:2 8 a

. m . - “ T his is f[ ***] ed up, br o[

. ] no j oke [. W ] hy y ou doing m e lik e 9 t hi s? ” 10 3: 31 a . m . - “ D ud e [ , ] a r e y ou [ f ** *] i ng ki dd i ng m e [ ? I ] t r us t e d y ou[. I ] 1 1 wa i t ed fo re v er [. L]et m e k n o w wh at t h e [ f* * * ]in g d ea l i s [

. I ] c an [’]t 12 be lie ve y ou[

. Y ou’ re ] j ust as ba d as [J J, ] but at le as t w e got som e [s ***] 13 fr om

him [. T ] his is [f

***] ing bul l[ s***

. I ] se ri ously can[’ ] t be lie ve 1 4 you [. ]” 15 Af ter re trieving Defe ndant’s cell phon e n um ber fr om Kinney ’ s cell phone, the A PD 16 officer s obtained Defendant’ s cell phone r ecords. The c ell phon e re cords showed that 17 betwee n 11:3 4 p.m . on D ecem ber 3, 2011 and 4:03 a. m . on D ecem ber 4, 2011 , ther e 1 8 w er e s e v e n t y - f

i v e c e l l p h o n e c a l l s f

r o m K i n n e y t o D e f

e n d a n t a n d e i g ht f

ro m 19 D ef en dant t o K inn ey . Ba se d onthe te xt m es sage s and c al ls, D et ec tiv e H oll ie 20 A nde rs on b el ieve d th at the re w as adis ag re em en t and a pos sib le c onf

ro nta tio n 21 be tw ee n K inn ey

a nd D ef en da nt.5

1 { 9} D et ec tiv e A nde rs on i nte rv ie w ed D ef en da nt i n th e earl y

m or nin g ho ur s of 2 De cem ber 5, 2011 . D efendant initially told Detective Anderson that he we nt to bed 3 ar ound 1:0 0 a

. m . or

2:0 0 a

. m . on the nig ht o f December 3 in to D ec em be r 4, a nd 4 stay ed hom e the e nti re day of D ec em be r 4. Whe n D et ec tiv e A nde rs on as ke d howhe 5 could hav e b ee n arre sted if he stay ed hom e all day , D efendant explained that 6 M o n t o yap i c k e dh i m u p a n dt o o kh i m t o t h e r e s t au r a n twh e r e s h e wo rk e d

. I n i t i a l l y, 7 De fendant said that he and his gi rlfrie nd were pulled ov er and that th e A PD officer s 8 found drug s on his side of the car , so he w as arr ested. I n res pons e to further 9 questio ning , ho we v er, D efendant changed his sto ry and explained that he was 10 w al kin g aw ay

f ro m the r es taur an t w he n an A PD of fi ce r sto ppe d him

in re spon se to 11 a 911 ca lle r re portin g that he ha d tri ed to bre ak int o Monto y a’ s ca r. H e sa id tha t the 12 A PD of

fi ce rs f ound the he ro in at tha t tim e, but he w as not sur e w he re the y f ound it

. 13 { 10} D et ec tiv e A nde rs on a ske d De fe ndant w he the r he kne we ith er K inn ey or F ro st. 14 De fendant claim ed that he did no t k n o w any one by those nam es. H owever , when 15 D et ec tive And ers on show ed him apic tur e of

K inn ey , he r es pond ed

that he a nd 16 K inn ey

ha d go tte n hig h to ge the r an d th at he som et im es he lpe d K inn ey “ sc or e” dr

ugs. 17 D ef en dant al le ge d tha t K inn ey ha d tr ie d to ca ll him to ge t dr ugs the nig ht b ef

or e he 18 w as a rr es te d. D ef

en da nt sai d that

he w as not

able to fi nd dru gs f

or K inn ey that ni ght ,6

1 an d th at

sin ce K inn ey ev en tua lly sto ppe d cal lin g, he as sum ed that K inn ey

ha d f ound 2 som e dr

ugs on h is o w n. D et ec tiv e A nde rs on t old D ef en da nt th at K inn ey

a nd F ro st 3 ha d be enf

ound m ur de re d th at m or

nin g. D ef

en da nt d en ie d kn ow ing about the 4 m ur de rs . 5 { 11} O n D ec em

be r 20, 201 1, D ef

en da nt w as c ha rg ed

by gr an d j ur

y ind ic tm en t w ith 6 two counts of first-degree m urder (w illful and deliberate ), two counts of fir st-degree 7 fe lon y m ur de r, tw o c ount s of shoo tin g at or fr om a m oto r ve hic le ca usi ng gr eat bo dil y 8 harm , tam

pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce , poss es sio n of a fir earm by af el on, auto bur glary , a nd 9 poss ession o f a c ontrolled s ubstanc e ( h er o i n ). Du ri n g No v emb er2 0 1 3 , De fe n d an twas 10 tried on all charges except t h e felon in possess ion of a firearm charge, which w as 11 se ve re d. 12 { 12} T he pr etri al sc he dul ing or de r m an da te d th at the part ie s pr oduc e an d e xc hange 13 fi na l w itn es s li sts no l at er th ante n day s pr ior to the f ir st d ay of tr ia l. T he S ta te 14 pr ovi de d af

ina l w itn es s li st i n a cc or da nc e w iththe pr etri al sc he dul ing or de r, but it 15 did not id entify

any expert w itnesses. De fendant filed a m otion in lim ine to restrict 16 Abraham

Cabrer a (Cabrera ) and A m y Tan (T an) fr om

testify ing because they

lacked 17 personal kno wledge, their testim ony wa s irrelevant, and neither one was disclosed as 18 a n e x p e r t wi tn es s. See R ul e 1 1- 60 2 N M RA ( A l a y w i t ne ss “ m a y

t e st i f y t o am a t t er7

1 onl y i f ev i d ence is introduced sufficient to sup port a finding th at the w itness has 2 pe rs ona l kn ow le dge of the m atte r. ”) ; Rul e 11- 401 N MR A ( E vid en ce is re le va nt i f it 3 tends to m ake a f

act in issue “ m ore o r less probable” and “ the fact is of c onsequ ence 4 in det er

m ini ng the a ct ion

. ”) ; and Rule 11-702 NMRA(“ A w itness who is qu alified 5 as a n e xpe rt

by kno w le dge , ski ll, e xpe ri en ce , tr ai nin g, or e duc at ionm ay

te sti fy in the 6 form of an opinion or o t h erwise if the expert’ s scientific, te chnical, or other 7 spe ci al iz ed

kno w le dge w ill he lp the tr ie r of f ac t t o un de rs tand the e vid en ce or to 8 determ ine a fa ct in issue.”). 9 { 13} At the hear ing on the m otion in lim ine, D efendant argued that he anticipated 10 Ca br er a an d T an ’ s te sti m ony w oul d in te rp re t cel l ph one -r el at ed r ec or ds, w hic h he 11 be lie ve d r equir ed

aqua lif ie d e xpe rt

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t r ule on the m oti on i n 12 lim ine , but

ins te ad too k it unde r advis em en t an d tol d th e pa rt ie s it w oul d de ci de the 13 m oti on d

ur ing tr ia l ba se d onthe f

ound at ionla id and the e xhi bit s of fe re d. 14 { 14} Both Cabrera

and Tan testified at trial. Cabrer a explained that as an em ploy ee 15 in C ri ck et ’ s le ga l c om pli an ce div isi on, his j ob w as to “ pul l the r awda ta fo r te le phon e 16 ca lls for

Cr ic ke t [ C] om

m uni catio ns and f

orm at it so l awe nf

or ce m en t c anr ea d th e 17 records. ” T he State introduced two exhibits throu g h Cabrer a: a ca ll detail report 1 8 r e c o r d f

o r D e f e n d a n t ’ s c e l l p h o n e n u m b e r l i s t i n g a l l i n c o m i n g a n d o u t g o i n g c al ls8

1 m ade betwe en Novem

ber 18, 2011 and Dece m

ber 5, 2011 (ca ll detail report rec ord), 2 an d a c e l l t o w e r r e p o rt l i s t i n g a l l A l b u qu e r qu e c e l l t o w e r s a n d t h e l ongi tud e an d 3 la tit ude c oor din at es f

or e ac h c el l t ow er

( ce ll tow er rep or t). A ft er Ca br er a br ie fl y 4 explained what eac h exhibi t wa s, D efendant obje cted, explainin g that the State had 5 not “ es ta bli she d th at

. . . Ca br er a [w as ] a nythi ng othe r than the cu sto dian of r ec or ds” 6 an d tha t it ap pe ar ed tha t the St at e w as be gin nin g to as k Ca br er a “ to int er

pr et the 7 m eanin g of the r ec or ds. ” D ef en dant c ont en de d th at

suc h te sti m ony

w as “ te ch nic al ” 8 an d ha d to be in tro du ced “ th ro ug h an ex pe rt wit ne ss an d no t th ro ug h a la y wit ne ss .” 9 The S tate re spon ded that Cabrer a was onlygoing to testify that the cell tower

report 10 “ shows the locations of the cell tow ers ar ound town,” about which Cabrer a had 11 pe rs ona l kn ow le dge “ [f ] ro m the r ec or ds. ” T he dis tr ic t co urt su sta ine d th e obj ec tio n, 12 instructin g the State to lay a foundation, and explained th at if Cabrer a could testify 13 ab out the co nte nts of the re co rd s “ ba se d on his ex pe ri en ce , ” the te sti m ony w oul d be 14 al low ed

. 15 { 15} The S tate then elicited testim ony from Cabrer a establishing that he had seen 16 ce ll tow er

r ep ort b efo re a nd kne whowto re ad the m . H e ex pla ine d th at

the r ec or ds 17 giv e the la tit

ude a nd l ongi tud e fo r ea chc el l t ower, an d th at it did not take a ny 18 sc i e nt i f

i c e xp e rt i se t o m ap t he l oc a t i ono f t he c e l l t ow e r

f r om t ho se c oo r di nat es9

1 be ca use asim ple G oogl e se ar ch“ w ill m ap it f or y ou. ” Ca br era th en de sc ri be d ho w 2 a ce ll phon e co nne ct s w ithac el l t ow er w he n aw ir el es s c ust om er pla ce s ac el l ph one 3 ca ll. Ca br er a ex pla ine d that

e ac h c el l t ow er

pr ovi de s asig na l t o th re e se pa rate se ct or s, 4 each covering 120 degrees of the are a ar ound the cell tower , which m ight p rovide a 5 general indication of where a ce ll pho ne is located when it connects to the cell tower

. 6 Ca br er a te sti fi ed

that a c el l ph one w ill c onne ct

to the c el l to wer wit h th e str onge st 7 signal and th at the radius of a ce ll tower’ s range depends on th e terr ain and other 8 factors, but the range is generally about on e m ile in an urban area like Albuquerque. 9 Defen se co un se l d id no t o bjec t agai n du rin g Cab rera ’s tes ti m on y , and on ly ask edtwo 10 que sti ons on c ro ss e xa m ina tio n: whe the r Ca br er a kne wabout

the accu racyof

the 11 lon git ude a nd l at itu de da tapr ovi de d f or the c el l t ow er s, a nd w he the r the re w as a ny 12 w ay to de te rm ine the dis tanc e be tw ee n ac el l ph one a nd the cel l towe r to whic h it 13 connects. Cabr era explaine d tha t the c ell tower

coordinates wer e pulled from engineer 14 re ports, w hic h he di d not pr oduc e him se lf

. H e al so t es tif

ie d th at the re is no w ay

to 15 de te rm ine howf

ar ac el l ph one is fr om

ac el l t ow er

w he n it co nne ct s to p la ce ac al l. 16 { 16} T he S ta te ’ s se co nd w itn es s, T an , w as a n e m plo y ee of

Ro cky Mo untain 17 In fo rm at ionN etw ork. T an ’ s j ob w as to cr eate vis ua l de pic tio ns o f inf orm at ion 1 8 p ro v i d ed b y l aw en fo rc emen tag en ci es . Ta n co m p i l ed i n fo rmat i o n fr o m

De fe n d an t ’s10

1 ce ll phon e re co rd s onto a m ap that sh ow ed

the loc at ionof

the c el l t ow er s us ed

f or 2 each ca ll usin g software called “ Tr acing Tr ips.” T an created a second m ap that 3 showed the cell tower and the sector to which each call c onnected. T an also crea ted 4 a tim el ine of

inc om ing a nd o utg oin g c al ls b etw ee n D ef en da nt’ s and K inn ey ’ s c el l 5 phon es . T andid

not te sti fy about D ef

en da nt’ s loc at ion ba se d onthe m ap s sh e cr eate d. 6 How ever, the m aps showed that the cell signal from De fendant’ s cell phone was 7 re ce ive d and r ec or de d by cell to w er s ne ar the D ow nto w n and O ld T ow n are as of 8 Albuquerque around th e tim e that the APD officer s believed Kinney and Frost we re 9 k i l l e d

. De f

e n s e c o u n s e l d i dn o to b

je c ta ta n y p o i n tdu r i n g Ta n ’s t e s t i mo n y. 10 { 17} T he j ur

y f ound D ef en da nt gui lty of

: one co unt of fi rs t- de gr ee m ur de r (w ill fu l 11 an d de lib er at e) f

or the de ath of

K inn ey ; on e co unt

of se co nd- de gr ee m

ur de r fo r the 12 death of Frost; two counts of first-degree felony m urder; two c ount s of shoot ing at 13 or f ro m am oto r ve hic le c ausi ng gre at bod ily harm ; on e co unt

of tam pe ri ng w ith 14 ev ide nc e; one co unt

of br eakin g and e nte ri ng; a nd o ne c ount of pos se ssi on o f he ro in. 15 A ft er se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t co urt en te re d its j udgm en t, se nte nc e, a nd c om m itm en t. 16 W ithr es pe ct

to K inn ey ’ s m

ur de r, the dis tr ic t co urt m er ge d the c onvi ct ion s f or f ir st17 de gr ee m

ur de r an d f

el ony m ur de r an d va cate d th e co nvi ct ionf or sho oti ng a t a

m oto r 18 vehicle on dou ble j eopardy grounds . W ith r espect to the killin g of Frost, the district11

1 co urt m er ge d th e co nvi ct ion s f or sec ond- de gr ee m

ur de r an d sh oot ing a t a

m oto r 2 vehicle with the felony m urder convictio n. Ac cordingly , the district c ourt sentenced 3 De fendant to two life sentences, one for each first-degree m urder convictio n, plus an 4 ad dit ion al tw el ve a nd a ha lf y ears , inc lud ing tw o ha

bit ua l of fe nde r en ha nc em en ts o n 5 th e re m ai nin g c onvi ct ion s f or tam pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce , br eakin g and e nte ri ng, a nd 6 poss es sio n of

he ro in. 7 { 18} W e ad dr es s ea ch of De fen da nt ’s cha ll en ge s t o h is co nv ic ti on s b el ow. 8 II. DISC US SION 9 A. Ad m issio n of C ell Ph one-R elated T estim ony 10 { 19} D ef

en da nt arg ue s that the dis tr ic t cour t shoul d no t have pe rm itt ed the S ta te to 11 adm it cell phone-related testim ony because the State did not qualify Cabrer a and T an 12 as e xpe rt s. D ef

en da nt arg ue s f

urth er th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by a dm itt ing the 13 testim ony b ec au s e it entailed specialized knowledge and, thus, a qualified expert 14 wit ne ss w as ne ce ssary . T he S ta te r es pond s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s 15 discret i o n i n adm itting lay testim ony

by Cabrer a and T an because their c ell phon e16 re lated testim ony

did no t invo lve any

scientific, technical, or otherwise specia lized 17 knowledge. 18 1. P re se rv at ion12

1 { 20} As a prelim inary m atter, we m

ust determ ine whether the issue was preser ved 2 w he n D ef

en da nt f ile d am oti on i n li m ine a nd o bj ec te d to Ca br er a’ s te sti m ony

a t tri al

. 3 “ In or de r to pre se rv e an iss ue fo r ap pe al , ade fe ndant m ust m ak e a tim el y

obj ec tio n 4 that specifically

apprises the trial court of the nature of the claim ed err or and invo kes 5 an intelligent ruling thereon.” Sta te v . W alt er s , 200 7- N MS C- 050, ¶

18, 14 2 N

. M. 644 , 6 168 P. 3d 1 068 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio ns o m itt ed ); see Ru le 11- 7 103( A )( 1) (a )- (b ) N MR A ( “ A party

m ay c la im e rr or in a ru lin g t o ad m it or

e xc lud e 8 ev ide nc e onl y

if the e rr or a ff ec ts a sub stanti al r igh t of

the party a nd

. . . if the r uli ng 9 adm i t s e vi de nc e , t he p a rt y , o n t he r e c or d

. . . t i m e l y o bj e c t s or

m ov e s t o str i ke , 1 0 an d

. . . s t at es t h e s p ec i fi c g ro u n d , u n l es s i twa s ap p ar en tfr o m t h e c o n t ex t [. ]”) . “ [I ]t 11 is the r es pons ibi lity

of c ouns el a t tri al to el ic it a de fi nit ive r uli ng o n an ob

j ec tio n f ro m 12 the court.” Sta te v . L uc er o , 199 3- N MS C- 064, ¶ 11, 116 N

. M. 450 , 863 P

. 2d 1 071. 13 { 21} D ef

en da nt i nit ia lly

obj ec te d to the adm iss ionof Ca br er a an d T an ’ s te sti m ony 14 by filing a m otion in lim ine. The d istrict court did not rule on the m otion in lim ine, 1 5 b u tt o o ki tu n d erad v i s e me n t . Th en , a tt ri al , De fe n d an to b je ct ed t o Cab re ra ’s 16 testim ony

on the basis that it required a qualified expert. The district court sust ained 1 7 De fe n d an t ’s o b

je ct i o n an do rd e r e d t h e St at e t o l ay a f o u n d at i o n fo r C ab re ra ’s 18 “ pe rs ona l kn ow le dge or his e xpe ri en ce . ” D ef

en da nt pr ope rl y pr es er

ve d th e iss ue w ith13

1 re spe ct to Ca br er a’ s te sti m ony be ca

use the obj ec tio n w as m ad e in a ti m el y f as hio n, 2 the na tur e of

the obj ec tio n w as c le ar , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt i ssu ed ar uli ng u pon the 3 obj ec tio n. 4 { 22} T he c ha lle nge to T an ’ s te sti m ony , how ev er, was not pr es er ve d. Whil e 5 D ef en dant a sse rt ed a spe ci fi c obj ec tio n to Ca br er a’ s tr ia l t es tim ony , a nd thus 6 pr es er ve d th e iss ue , D ef

en da nt fa ile d to obj ec t to Tan’ s tes tim ony at tr ia l. A s ar es ult , 7 Defen da nt ’s ob

jecti on to Tan’s t es ti m on y res te d s ol el y

on th e mo t i o n i n l im in e, a 8 general obj ection, on which the district court j udge did not rule. 9 { 23} The m otion in lim ine di d n o t ap prise either the opposin g party or the district 10 co ur t to an y sp eci fic al le ge d erro r in Tan ’s act ua l t ria l t es ti m on y . See State v. Leyv a , 11 2011 -N MSC- 009, ¶ 36, 149 N .M. 435, 250 P.3d 861 (concluding that “ [w ] e re quire 12 part ie s to a sse rt the le ga l pr inc ipl e upon w hic h the ir c la im s are ba se d and t o de ve lop 13 the f ac ts i n th e tr ia l c ourt pr im ar ily f or tw o r ea sons : ( 1) to al er

t th e tri al co urt t o a 14 cl ai m of e rr or so tha t i t ha s an op portun ity to co rr ec t any

m ist ak e, a nd ( 2) to giv e the 15 oppo sin g party

af ai r oppo rt uni ty to re sp ond an d sh oww hy the c ourt sh oul d r

ule 16 against the ob

j ector. ” (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). As the Court 17 of Appe al s st at ed

in Ky sar v. B P A m er ic an Produ ct ion Co

. , 201 2- N MC A -0 36, ¶ 23, 18 273 P.3d 867 , “ [a] m otion in lim ine is m erely a prelim inary

determ ination by

a district14

1 court regarding the adm issib ility of evidence.

. . . m otion s in lim ine are interlocutory 2 or de rs w h i ch are s ub

ject t o re co ns id erat io n b y th e d is tri ctco ur t d ur in g t he tri al .” 3 (C itatio ns o m itt ed ). T he Co urt of Appe al s co nti nue d tha t “ [i ] t is o ft enim poss ibl e to 4 m ak e de fi nit ive e vid en tiary r uli ngs pr ior

to tr ia l be ca

use adm iss ibi lity

w ill de pe nd o n 5 the state of the evidence at the tim e o f th e rulin g. As the trial unfolds, . .

. it [m ay be] 6 proper for the district court t o revi sit, and m odify or rever se its prior ruling.” Id

. 7 (in t er n al qu o t at i o n m ar k s an dci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). “ [M ]o t i o n s i n l i m i n e s ee k i n g ad vance 8 rulings on the adm issib ility of evidence ar e fraught with problem s because they are 9 necessarily

based upon an alleged set of fa cts rather than the actual testim ony which 10 the trial court w ould have before it at trial in order to m ake its ruling .” Id

. ( al te ratio n 1 1 in o r i g i n a l ) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. B y t h e i r v e ry n a tu r e , m o t i o n s i n l i m i n e d o not 12 sufficiently

preserve an issue because the rulings o n th em ar e subjec t to change, 1 3 de pe n d i n g o n t h e n a tu r e o f t h e r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l

. T h u s , D e f e n d a n t f a i l e d to 1 4 p r e s e rv e h i s o b

je c t i o n t o Ta n ’s t e s t i mo n y. 15 { 24} W e re vie wthe adm iss ion of an unpr es er ve d cl ai m onl y if the adm iss ion of the 16 challenged evidence is plain error and it aff ects a substantial right. Rule 11-103(E). 17 T o c onst itu te pla in e rr or , it m ust giv e ri se to “ an inj ust ic e tha t c re at es gr av e doub ts 18 concerning the validi ty of the verdict. ” Sta te v. B egay , 1998 -N MS C- 029, ¶ 21, 12515

1 N

. M

. 5 4 1 , 9 6 4 P

. 2 d 1 0 2 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a rk s a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. T he 2 adm iss ionof

T an ’ s te sti m ony

doe s no t r ise to a le ve l tha t cr eate s a gr av e doub t a s to 3 the va lid ity

of the ve rd ic t. F or

the se r ea sons , w e do n ot f ind pla in e rr or

that w oul d 4 c o mp e l u s t o r e v i e wt h e a d mi s s i b i l i t y o f Ta n ’s t e s t i mo n y. 5 2. Ad m issibility of Cabrer a’s testim ony 6 { 25} The central is sue before us is whether C abrera shoul d have been qualified as 7 an expert to testify regarding cell phone-related evidence. While cell phone-related 8 te st im on y

is in crea si ng ly comm on ev id en ce i n t ria ls , se e ge ne ral lyAaro n B la nk , Th e 9 Li m ita tio ns a nd A dm iss ibi lit y of U sin g H istorica l Cel lu lar

Sit e D ata T

o T rac k the 10 Lo ca tio n of a Cel lu la r Ph one , 18 R ic h. J. L

. & T ec h. 3 ( 2011 ); A le xa ndr a W el ls, 1 1 Pi ng! T h e A d m i s s i b i l i t y o f C e l l u l a r R e c o r d s T o T r a c kC r i m i n a l D e f e n d a n t s , 3 3 S t. 12 L oui s U

. Pu

b. L

. Re v. 487 (2 014) , the param et er s of it s a dm iss iona re am atte r of f ir st 13 im pr es sio n inN ewMe xic o. 14 { 26} “ [T ] he threshold q ues t i on of whether the tr ial court applied the correct 15 evidentiary rule or standard is subject to de novo reviewon appeal.” State v. T orres , 16 1999 -N MSC- 010, ¶ 28, 127 N. M. 20, 976 P.2d 20. “ [T ] he adm issi o n of expert 17 testim ony or other scientific evidence is .

. . within the soun d discretion o f t h e trial 18 court and will not be reversed a bsent a showing of abus e of that discretion.” State v.16

1 Alberico , 199 3- N MS C- 047, ¶ 58, 116 N

. M. 156 , 861 P

. 2d 1 92. 2 { 27} W e co nsi de r Cab rera ’s tri al tes ti m on y to fal l wi th in two di st in ctcat eg or ie s. T he 3 fi rs t c at eg or

y of Ca br er a’ s te sti m ony

inc lud es his test im ony

r eg ar din g th e co nte nts 4 of two ce ll pho ne-rela ted records, nam ely a ca ll de t ai l report re cord and cell tower 5 re port l ist ing the loc at ionof a ll ce ll towers in the c ity of A lbu que rque . T he se co nd 6 category

includes testim ony

pertaining to ho w c ell towers operate. W e address eac h 7 in t ur n. 8 { 28} T he S ta te a rg ue s th at the fi rs t ca te gor y of c el l ph one -r el at ed

te sti m ony

doe s no t 9 re qui r e aqu a l i f

i e de x p e rt

. M a n y

o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a v e a d d r e s s e dt h i s i s s u e a nd 10 co nc lud ed tha t inf

orm at ion in a ce ll de ta il re port or m ap show ing the loc at ionof c el l 11 to wers do es no t requ ire a q ua li fie d e xp ert

. Se e, e . g. , Co lli ns v . Sta te , 172 S o. 3d 7 24, 12 743 (Miss. 2015 ) (e n banc) (T he Mississi ppi Suprem e Cou rt h eld that testim ony that 13 sim ply describes the inform ation in a call detail report re cord or “ inform s the jur y as 14 to the loc at ion of ce ll

. . . tow er s” is pr ope rl y lay te sti m ony w he n it is ba se d up on the 15 pe rs ona l obse rv at ion s of the w itn es s. ); Sta te v . B lur ton , 484 S

. W

. 3d 7 58, 771 -7 2 ( Mo. 16 2016 ) (e n banc) (T he Missouri Suprem e Court held that a lay witness m ay

testify as 17 to the loc at ionof

dif fe re nt c el l to wers “ pinge d” by the de fe ndant’ s c el l ph one 18 thr ough out

the nig ht s o lo ng as the St at e did not tr y to pinpoi nt the pr ec ise loc at ion17

1 of the de fe ndant’ s “ ce ll phon e in re la tio n to the ce ll tow er to w hic h [ the de fe ndant’ s] 2 ce ll phon e w as co nne ct ed at the tim e the c al ls w er e m ad e[

. ] ”) ; B urns ide v. Sta te , 352 3 P. 3d 62 7, 636 (Ne v. 2015) (en banc) ( The S uprem e Court of N evada held that “ a m ap 4 showing th e locations of the cell p hone sites that handled calls from the cell phones 5 registered to [ the defendants] during th e tim e period relevant to the m urder, ” w hich 6 al so i nc lud ed

the ti m e of

e ac h c al l and t es tim ony w hic h m erel y de sc ri be d th e 7 locations o f ce ll towers, wa s not expert testim ony .)

. 8 { 29} In t h e i n s t an tca s e, we t ak e a d i ff er en t ap p ro ac h . Th e f

i rs tca t eg o ry o f C ab re ra ’s 9 te sti m ony

w as not opi nio n te sti m ony . Rathe r, Ca br er a’ s tes tim ony re ga rd ing the c al l 10 de ta il re port r ec or d and the c el l t ow er r ep ort w as te sti m ony

ab ou t th e co nte nts a nd 11 m eanin g of

bus ine ss r ec or ds f

or w hic h he wa s qual if

ie d as a cust odi an . U nde r Ru le 12 11 -8 03 (6 ) N MR

A , ar ec or d of

a n a ct , e ve nt, c ondi tio n, opi nio n, or dia gnos is i s no t 13 excluded bythe hearsay rule if: 14 (a ) the r ec ord was m ade at or ne ar the ti m e by

—or f ro m 15 inform ation transm itted by —som eone with knowledge, 16 (b) the record w as kept in the course of a regularly conducted 17 ac tiv ity

of abus ine ss, ins tit

uti on, or ganiz at ion , oc cu pa tio n, or c al lin g, 18 w he the r or

not f or pr of it, 1 9 ( c ) mak i n g t h e r e c o r dwa s a r e g u l a r p r a c t i c e o f t h a ta c t i v i t y, 20 an d18

1 (d ) al l the se c ondi tio ns are sho w n by the tes tim ony

of the 2 custodi an or another q u al i fied witness, or by a ce rtification that 3 co m

pli es w ithRu le 11- 902( 11) or (1 2) N MR A or w ithastatut e 4 pe rm itt ing c er

tif ic at ion

. 5 A s ar es ult , ne ith er

Ru le 11- 701 N MR

A nor Ru le 11- 702 ne ed ed

to be sa tis fi ed

. 6 { 30} T he S ta te la id an ad equa te e vid en tiary f ound at ionf

or Ca br er a, the r ec or ds 7 custodi an, to testify

to the contents of the busin ess records. Rule 11-803(6). Cabre ra 8 te sti fi ed

that the da tain the ca ll de ta il re por t re co rd w as ca

pture d by ac om put er a t or 9 near the tim e of occurr ence of a m atter set f

orth in the cell phon e re cords. H e further 10 testified that the rawdata, docum ents, and rec ords wer e cr eated and kept in the usu al 11 co ur se of

r eg ular busi ne ss a ct ivi ty

. T he de fe nse c ouns el de cl ine d to obj ec t. 12 { 31} W ith regard to the adm issib ility of the busi n es s rec ords, under the right-for13 an y -r ea son doc tr ine , w e upho ld the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n th at the c ont en ts o f the 14 bu si ne ss reco rd s wer e p ro pe rly adm it te d a s b us in es s re co rd s. Sta te v . V arga s , 200 8- 15 N MS C- 019, ¶

8, 143 N

. M. 692 , 181 P

. 3d 6 84 (“ Und er the r igh t f or a ny r ea son 16 doc tr ine , w e m ay af

fi rm the dis tr ic t co urt’ s or de r on g ro unds not r el ie d up on b y

the 17 dis tr ic t c ourt i f tho se gr ound s do not re qui re us to l ook be y ond the f ac tua l a lle ga tio ns 18 tha t w er e ra ise d and c onsi de re d be low

. ” (i nte rn al qu ota tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 19 om itt ed ))

. Be ca

use Ca br er a te sti fi ed to the co nte nts a nd m eanin g of bus ine ss r ec or ds 20 for w hich he was a

custodian u nder Rule 11-803(6), the testim ony wa s adm issib le.19

1 { 32} In ad ditio n, the district court could have taken judicial notice of the ce ll tower 2 re port be ca

use it inc lud ed the la tit ude a nd l ongi tud e of

a ll ce ll tow er s inthe c ity of 3 Albuquerque. The latitude and lo ngitu de point s on a glob e or valid m ap are a proper 4 subj ec t of jud ic ia l no tic e. Ru le 11- 201( B) (2 ) N MR A ( “ T he c ourt m ay

j udi ci al ly 5 not ic e a fa ct

that i s no t subj ec t to rea sona ble dis put e be ca

use it

. . . c anbe a cc ur at el y 6 an d r ea dil y

de te rm ine d f

ro m sourc es w hose a cc ur ac y c an not r ea sona bly be 7 que sti one d .

. . . ”) ; se e als o Tr uji llo v . D im as , 195 6- N MS C- 043, ¶ 42, 61 N

. M. 235 , 8 297 P. 2d 1060 (ho ldi ng tha t the dis tr ic t cour t coul d take j udi ci al not ic e of the loc at ion 9 of ac ounty a nd the locati on of

the N ewMe xic o P ri nc ipa l M er idi anin ana ct ion 10 inv olv ing the va lid ity of ta x sa le s) ; Ca rls bad B road

. Co rp. v . B ure au o

f R evenue , 11 1947 -N MS C- 047, ¶

8, 51 N .M. 36 0, 18 4 P

. 2d 4 34 ( ta kin g no tic e tha t “ T ex as state 12 lin es ar e abo ut 7 0 m ile s e as t and 3 0 m ile s so uthof Carl sba d, ” N ewMe xic o) ; United 13 Sta tes v . P igg ie , 622 F. 2d 4 8 6 , 4 8 8 (10th Cir. 1980) (“ Ge ography has long b een 14 pe cu liarl y

sus ce ptible t o j udi ci al not ic e fo r the obv iou s r ea son tha t ge ogr ap hic 15 loc at ion s ar e fa ct s w hic h ar e not ge ne ra lly co ntr ove rs ia l

. . . . ”) ; R oze lle v . B arna rd , 16 1963 -N MSC- 101, ¶ 2, 72 N .M. 182, 382 P.2d 180 (“ This court, since early territorial 17 day s, ha s e xpr es se d th e vie wthat c ourts will take j udi ci al not ic e of m atte rs of 18 com m on and general knowledge.”).20

1 { 33} Ha d the State lim ited Cabrer a’ s testim ony to just the call detail re port record 2 an d th e ce ll to wer report , w e w oul d f ind no e rr or . H ow ev er , Ca

br er a pr oc ee de d to 3 te st i f y ab o u t h o w c e l l t o w e r s o p e r a t e a n d i n t e r a c t w i t h c e l l s i g n a l s t o l o c a te the 4 ge ne ra l or igi n of

ac el l ph one c al l. T his se co nd c at eg or y of te sti m ony

r equir es the 5 “ sc ie nti fi c, te ch nic al , or oth er spe ci al iz ed

kno w le dge ” to a ssi st “ the t rie r of f ac t t o 6 understand th e evidence or deter m ine a fa ct in issue. ” Rule 11-702. “ This Court has 7 d i s c e rn e dt h r e e p r e r e qu i s i t e s i n R u l e 1 1

- 7 0 2 f

o r t h e a d mi s s i o n o f

e x p e rtt e s t i mo n y: 8 (1 ) ex pe rt s m

ust be qua lif

ie d; (2) the ir te sti m ony m ust as sis t the tr ie r of

f ac t; an d ( 3) 9 their testim ony

m ust be lim ited to the area of scientific, technical, or other specialized 10 kn owl ed ge in whi ch th ey are q ua li fie d.” See Torres , 199 9- N MS C- 010, ¶ 23. 11 { 34} In es se nc e, a ce ll phon e func tio ns as a tw o- w ay ra dio tha t co nti nua lly tr an sm its 12 an d col le ct s s ig na ls fro m cel l t owe rs th ro ug ho ut a cel l n et wor k. U nit ed Sta tes v. H

ill , 13 818 F. 3d 289, 295 (7 th C ir

. 201 6) ; see Bl an k, supra , at **5-6. Ea ch cell to we r covers 14 a geographic are a, and the connection b etwe en the cell phone and the cell tower can 15 be inf lue nc ed by a num

be r of f ac tor s, inc lud ing “ [t ] he num be r of a nte nna s op er at ing 16 on the c el l [ tow er ] , the he igh t of the a nte nna s, top ogr ap hy of th e sur

ro undi ng l an d, 17 an d o bs tru ct io ns (bo th na tu ral an d m an -m ad e).” Bl an k, supra , a t *5

. Whe n ac al l i s 18 m ad e, th e cel l p ho ne typic al ly con ne ct s t o t he cel l to wer w it h t he st ro ng es t s ig na l. Id

.21

1 at *6. H ow ev er , c el l t ow er s of te n ov er la p inc ove ra ge so tha t a sin gle ce ll phon e ca ll 2 m ig ht si m

ul ta ne ou sl y

co nn ect to m or e th an on e to wer. Id

. A lth oughthe vic ini ty

of the 3 ce ll phon e use r is a s ubst an tia l f ac tor in de te rm ini ng the c el l t ow er w ithw hic h th e ce ll 4 phon e co nne ct s, the ge ogr ap hy , top ogr ap hy , a ngl e an d nu m be r of a nte nna s onthe c el l 5 to wer s it es , and ch arac te ris ti cs of t he sp eci fic ph on e im pa ctth e an al y si s. Id

. at

*7. 6 { 35} In our view, understandin g how cell towe rs operate r equ ires a duly qualified 7 ex pe rt to ex pla in the te ch nic al na ture of the m an y vari ab le s th at

inf lue nc e howc el l 8 tow er sig na ls c onne ct

w ithc el l phon es . Ru le 11- 702. T o c onc lud e oth er w ise w oul d 9 su bv ert t h e rel iabi li ty requ ire m en ts of o urrul es of e vi de nc e. See Torres , 199 9- 10 N MS C- 010, ¶

42 ( not ing that w ith out the pro pe r fo undatio n e sta bli shi ng the 11 know le dge , ski ll, e xpe ri en ce , tr ai nin g, or e duc at ionof

the w itn es s, the r el ia

bil ity of 12 thi s ty pe of te sti m ony is unde rm ine d)

. Q ua lif y ing an ex pe rt en sur es tha t the te sti m ony 13 “ wil l h el p t he tri er o f fact to un de rs ta nd th e ev id en ce o r to de te rm in e a fac t i n i ss ue ,” 14 Ru le 11- 702, r athe r than “ co nf us[ e] the iss ue s [o r] m isl ea d[ ] the j ur y . ” Ru le 11- 403 15 NMRA. 16 { 36} Cabrer a’ s testim ony regar ding how cell tow ers operate required a tec hnical 17 an al y sis of the m an y fa ct or s tha t i nf lue nc e the str en gthof

c el l si gna ls and the tow er s’ 1 8 co n n ec t i o n wi t h ce l l p h o n es i n o rd ert o as ce rt ai n t h e g en er al l o ca t i o n o f D ef en d an t ’s22

1 phon e at a par

tic ular poin t in tim e. T he St at e fa ile d to es ta bli sh tha t C ab re ra

ha d th e 2 specialized k nowledge and experience to reliably explain how t he cell to we r operated 3 in d et er

m ini ng the ge ne ra l l oc at ionof D ef en da nt ’s cel l ph one . T his ty pe of c el l 4 phon e- re la te d in fo rm at ionis hig hly te ch nic al an d r equir es spe ci al iz ed kno w le dge of 5 a qua lif

ie d e xpe rt und er Ru le 11- 702. 6 { 37} Other j urisdictio ns have a l so d e t e r m i ne d tha t explainin g how cell towe rs rec ord 7 an d re cei ve si gn al s i s cl earl y wit hi n t he real m

of e xp ert tes ti m on y . United State s v. 8 Yel ey -D av is , 632 F.3d 67 3, 684 (1 0thCi r. 201 1) ; se e als o H ill , 818 F

. 3d a t 29 6 9 (c onc lud ing that “ sta te m en ts a bout howc el l .

. . tow er s oper at e . . . fi t[ ] ea sil y int o th e 10 cate gor

y of e xpe rt te sti m ony ”)

. Co urts h av e ex pli ci tly he ld that pi npoi nti ng a

c el l 11 pho ne in rel at ionto a ce ll tow er inv olv es “ spe ci al iz ed

kno w le dge not

r ea dil y 12 acce ssibl e to any ordinary p er son.” Yel ey -D av is , 632 F

. 3d a t 68 4. T he N ev ad a 13 Su pr em e Co urt de te rm ine d t h at t e s t i m o ny

e xpl ai nin g th at

c el l si gna ls u sua lly

tr an sm it 14 fr om the ne ar es t ce ll tow er , ex ce pt w he n the sit e is too bus y or the re is anobs tr

uc tio n, 15 was ex pe rt t es ti m on y . B urns ide , 352 P. 3d a t 63 6- 37. S im ilarl y , the Mi sso ur i C ourt of 16 Appe al s c onc lud ed

that e xpe rt te sti m ony is re qui re d to loc at e “ the ar ea in whic h [ the 17 de fe ndant’ s c el l] pho ne m ust ha ve be ento ha ve c onne ct ed to a pa rt ic ular ce ll 18 sit e— i. e. , to pr of

fe r te sti m ony

a ct ua lly pr oba tiv e of w he the r [the de fe ndant] w as in23

1 one are a rathe r than th e othe r— re qui re d ana ly sis of m an y vari ab le s th at

inf lue nc e ce ll 2 site sign al strength.” Sta te v . P att on , 419 S. W .3d 125, 132 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013 ). 3 { 38} It

is inc um be nt upon the dis tr ic t c ourt, a s ga te ke ep er , to en sur e the r el ia bil ity 4 of the te sti m ony

pr es en te d to the j ur

y . W e the re fo re c onc lud e tha t C ab re ra sho uld 5 ha ve be en ide nti fi ed an d pr ope rl y qua lif ie d a s an e xpe rt

be fo re te sti fy ing about

how 6 ce ll tow er s in te ract w ithc el l si gna ls t o id en tif y the loc at ionof

ac el l ph one c al l 7 be ca use thi s in fo rm at ionr equir ed spe ci al iz ed

kno w le dge

. T he re fo re , be ca use the 8 St at e did

not ide nti fy Cab rera as aqua lif ie d e xpe rt , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a sse ss 9 the e vid en tiary

r el ia bil ity of his te sti m ony . A s ar es ult , the dis tr ic t c ourt erred in 10 adm itt ing thi s te sti m ony a t tri al

. 11 { 39} “ Im

pr ope rl y adm itt ed ev ide nc e is n ot g ro unds f or ane wtr ia l un le ss the e rr or 12 is determ ined to be harm ful.” Sta te v . T ollardo , 201 2- N MS C- 008, ¶ 25, 275 P. 3d 1 10 13 (c itatio ns o m itt ed ). “ W e now an aly ze w he the r thi s e vid en tiary e rr or w as m er el y 14 harm less, in which case we could overlookit, or pr ej udicial, re quiring rever sal.” Sta te 15 v. L ey ba , 201 2- N MS C- 037, ¶ 23, 289 P

. 3d 1 215. 16 { 40} “ [W ] e ap ply

the non -c onst itu tio na l e rr or standard f or harm le ss er

ro r” be ca use 17 ad m it ti ng th e cel l to wer evi de nc e was an ev id en ti a r y e r r o r. Sta te v . L ey ba , 201 2- 18 N MS C- 037, ¶

24, 289 P

. 3d 1 215; se e als o Sta te v . T ollardo , 201 2- N MS C- 008, ¶ 36,24

1 275 P. 3d 1 10. Whil e a co nst itu tio na l e rr or r equir es onl y

ar ea sona

ble p os sib ili ty

of 2 pr ej udi ce f

or r ev er sa l, “ [a ] non -c onst itu tio na l e rr or r equir es r ev er sa l w he n ther e is a 3 ‘ reasonable prob abi lit

yth atm is co nd uc t co nt rib ut edto th e [d efen da nt ’s] co nv ic ti on .’ 4 ” Le yb a , 20 12 -N MS C- 037, ¶ 24 ( se co nd a lte ratio n inor igi na l) ( em pha sis a dde d) 5 (quot ing To lla rdo , 2012-NMS C-008, ¶ 31). T o determ ine “ the probable effec t of an 6 ev id en ti ary erro r,” we as se ss all of th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e err or . Le yb a , 7 2012 -N MS C- 037, ¶

24 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). I n do ing so, 8 “ [w ] e ex am ine the e rr or it se lf , inc lud ing the sourc e o f th e er ro r an d th e em

pha sis 9 placed on the error at trial.” Id . “ T o pu t the e rr or in co nte xt, w e of

te n lo ok a t the 10 other, non-ob

j ectionable evidence of guilt

. . . to e valuate what role the error play ed 11 at trial. ” Id

. W e co nd uc t t hi s an al y si s o n a cas e-b y -cas e b as is

. Id

. 12 { 41} Al t h o u g h t h e S t at e u s ed C a b re ra ’s t es t i m o n y t o d i s cr ed i tDe fe n d an t ’s 1 3 s t at emen t s t o t h e A PD ab o u th i s l o ca t i o n o n t h e n i g h to f t h e mu rd er s , Ta n ’s 14 testim ony , to w hich t here w as no objection, sum m arize d the inform ation contain ed 15 w ith in the c al l de ta il re port r ec or d and the c el l t ow er r ep ort pr oduc ed by

Ca br er a to 16 showthe lon git

ude a nd l at itu de of

c el l ph one tow er s onam ap . U nde r the 17 non- co nst itu tio na l st an da rd f or harm le ss er

ro r, w e con cl ude that i t w as harm le ss e rr or 18 in a dm itt ing Ca

br er a’ s te sti m ony

r eg ar din g ho w ce ll tow er s op er at e be ca use the c al l25

1 detail report re cord and the cell to we r report which were used to create the m aps wer e 2 properly

adm itted. A dditi onally , the c alls bet we en De fendant and Kinney are 3 inc ulp at or

y , a s are the loc at ion of the tow er s w he n the se c al ls w er e pla ce d. I t i s a lso 4 harm less error with respect to De fendant’ s convictio ns for tam pering with evidence 5 an db re ak i n g an den t er i n g b ec au s e Ca b re ra ’s t es t i m o n y d i dn o tre l at e t o De fe n d an t ’s 6 co nvi ct ion s f

or c ondu ct oc curr ing a t a

dif fe re nt t im e an d lo catio n. As a re sul t, 7 D ef en dant f ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t the re is a r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity that the j ur

y w oul d 8 ha ve ha d ar ea sona

ble doubt c onc er

nin g hi s gu ilt

a s ar es ult

. 9 B. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e 10 { 42} D ef

en da nt arg ue s th at t he re w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort hi s 11 convictio ns. “ In review ing th e sufficiency of the evidence, we m

ust view the evidence 12 in the light m ost favorable to th e guilty verdict, indu lging all rea sonable inferences 13 and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict. ” State v. 14 Cu nni ngha m , 2000 -N MS C- 009, ¶ 26, 128 N

. M. 711, 998 P. 2d 1 76. “ [T ] he r el ev an t 15 que sti on is w he the r, a ft er vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the 16 pr os ecu ti on , anyr at ion al tr ie r of fa ct c oul d have f

ound the e sse nti al e le m en ts o f the 17 crim e b ey ond a re asonable dou bt.” Sta te v . G arc ia , 1992 -N MSC- 048, ¶ 26, 114 N. M. 18 26 9, 83 7 P. 2d 8 62 ( al te ratio n inor igi na l) ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n26

1 om itted). 2 1. De fend ant’s convict ions for first- degree m urde r 3 { 43} De fendant’ s argum ents concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to suppo rt 4 hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r th e cri m es co m m it te d a t Ti gu ex Park are ba se d o n wh athe vi ews 5 as t h e S t a t e ’ s f

a i l u r e t o p r o v e i d e n t i t y ; t h a t i s , t h a t D e f e n d a n t w a s t h e pe rs on w ho 6 com m itted the m

ur de r s. De fendant does not argue that there wa s insu fficient evidence 7 to prove the oth er e lem ents of the crim e. 8 { 44} A cc or di ng ly, we rev ie w th e ev id en ce t o d et erm in e whe th er a ra tiona l j ur y c oul d 9 find that D e f

e nd a nt pe r

pe t r a t e d t he m

ur de r s. T he c e l l ph on e r e c or ds sh ow that 10 D ef en dant an d K inn ey w er e in co nta ct on the nig ht of the m ur de rs . As th e Stat e 11 poin ts out, the text m essages from Kinney to D efendant show that Kinney wa s upset 12 w ithD ef

en da nt, w hic h co uld supp ort an inf er en ce of a co nf

lic t be tw ee n th e tw o. T he 13 m ap pr ep ar ed

by T ansho w s th at

D ef en da nt’ s c el l phone “ pin ge d” a ce ll tow er in the 14 Old T own are a ar ound 4:00 a.m ., t h e approxim ate tim e w hen the m urders w ere 15 be lie ve d to ha ve oc curr ed

. A ddi tio na lly , be ca use w e co nsi de r ev ene rr one ousl y 16 ad m it te d e vi de nc e, se e P ost , 198 9- N MC A -0 90, ¶ 24, w e not e tha t the j ur y c oul d have 17 inf er re d th at D ef en da nt w as in the a re a at that t im e ba se d on Ca

br er a’ s te sti m ony 18 about ho w a

cell phone connects to th e cell tow er w ith the strongest s ignal. Further,27

1 a w itn es s r ep orte d se ei ng D ef en da nt w ithaf

ir earm onl y a few hours la te r in the 2 park ing lot

of the r es taur an t w he re Mon toy a w orke d. A nd, al tho ugh D ef en da nt t old 3 D et ec tiv e A nde rs on tha t he stay ed hom e al l ni ght

a nd f el l a sle ep by

1:0 0 a

. m . or

2:0 0 4 a. m . , his phon e re co rd s show tha t he m ad e and a nsw er ed c el l ph one c al ls t o and f

ro m 5 Kin ne y an d ot he rs m

uc h l at er t ha n 2 :0 0 a .m . See State v. Flores , 201 0- N MS C- 002, 6 ¶ 23, 147 N. M. 542, 226 P. 3d 641 (“ [E ] vidence of

. . . an attem pt to deceive the police 7 m ay prove consciou sness of guilt .” (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted)). 8 T his e vid en ce pr ovi de s a suff ic ie nt bas is upon w hic h a j ur y c oul d f ind that D ef en dant 9 w as the pe rs on w ho c om m itt ed the m ur de rs . 10 2. De fend ant’s convict ion s fo r tam perin g w ith evide nce and br eak ing and 11 ente ring 12 { 45} De fendant argues under Sta te v . F rank lin , 196 7- N MS C- 151, 78 N

. M. 127 , 428 13 P. 2d 982 and State v. B oyer , 1985 -N MCA -029, 103 N .M. 655, 712 P.2d 1, that there 14 w as ins uf

fi ci en t evi de nc e to suppo rt his co nvi ct ion s f or tam pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce a nd 15 br eakin g and e nte ri ng. 16 { 46} T o f

ind D ef en da nt g uil ty

of tam pe ri ng w ith ev ide nc e, the j ur y m ust ha ve f ound 1 7 b eyo n da r ea s o n ab l e d o ub tt h at (1 ) “ [t ]h e d ef en d an t h i d a fi re ar m ,” an d t h at (2 ) “[b ]y 18 doi ng s o, the defen da nt int en de d to pr ev en t the appr eh en sio n, pr ose cu tio n or 19 convictio n of Carlos Car rillo.” See UJI 14-224 1 NMRA . A t trial, a w itness testified28

1 tha t sh e w as “ [a] bsol ute ly pos iti ve ” she sawagunin D ef en da nt’ s hand w he n he 2 broke into t h e ca r at Golden Pride. De fendant then fled on foot, and when police 3 stopp ed him

soon th erea fter, he did not have a gu n. T houg h Def endant told police 4 that he used his hands to break th e windo w, the j ury could logically infer that he had 5 a gun, w hic h he dis pose d of on the w ay

f ro m G old enP ri de , a nd the n li ed about it to 6 the pol ic e. F urthe r, be ca use he ha d be en se en co m m itt ing a cr im e (b re ak ing int o th e 7 car) , the j ur

y co uld re as ona

bly inf er tha t D ef

en da nt hid the gun to pr ev en t 8 apprehension, prosecution , or convictio n of that crim e. 9 { 47} W e not e tha t State v. Silva requires that evidence showing that a defendant had 10 a gun an d us ed th at gunto co m m it a cr im e, c om

bin ed w ithasho w ing that the gun 11 w as the n r em ove d f

ro m the sc en e an d ne ve r re co ve re d, is ins uf fi ci en t to show tha t the 1 2 d e f e n d an th a dt h e i n t e n tr e qu i r e db y N M S A 1 9 7 8 , § 3 0

- 2 2

- 5 ( A ) ( 2 0 0 3 )

. 2 008- 13 NMSC -0 51 , ¶¶ 1 7- 19 , 14 4 N.M. 8 15 , 19 2 P .3d 11 92 , hold ing modified b y State v. 14 G ue rra , 2012-NMS C-027, ¶¶ 12-16, 284 P.3d 1076 . T he Silv a Co urt he ld tha t the 15 St at e m

ust pr ovi de e ith er

dir ec t e vid en ce of

aspe ci fi c int en t t o tam

pe r or e vid en ce of 16 an overt act from which th e jury could infer that intent. 2008-NMSC- 051, ¶ 18. H ere, 17 the St at e’ s ca se is supp orte d by aw itn es s’ s te sti m ony

that sh e sawD ef

en da nt w itha 18 gun af te r the m ur de rs w er e co m

m itt ed , tha t D ef

en da nt le ft the sc en e an d w as f ound29

1 shortlythereaf

ter w ith no gun, and that Def endant lied about using his hand to b reak 2 the window. This evidence disting uishes th is case fr om those in which the jury

wa s 3 “ ef fe ct ive ly a ske d . . . to spe cu la te tha t an ove rt ac t of

. . . hid ing [ the m

ur de r w ea pon] 4 ha d t ak en pl ace, base d so le ly on the fac t that suc h e vi de nc e wa s ne ve r fo und .” Id . ¶ 5 19 ( al te ratio n and se co nd o m iss ionin or igi na l) ( em pha sis a dde d) ( int er

na l qu ota tio n 6 m ar k s an dci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). Th e r e w a s s u ff i ci en tev i d en ce t o s up p o rt De fe n d an t ’s 7 convictio n for tam

pering with evidence. 8 { 48} D ef

en da nt a lso c ont en ds tha t the re w as in su ffi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort hi s 9 co nvi ct ion fo r br eakin g and ent er ing be ca use he e nte re d to r etri ev e his ow n pr ope rty 10 from the vehicle. T o find Defe ndant gu ilty of breaking and entering, the j u rywa s 11 re qui re d to fi nd: (1 ) “ [t ] he de fe ndant e nte re d a200 6 C he vr ole t 4- door be lon gin g to 12 Sh an te ll Mon toy a w ith out pe rm iss ion ” an d ( 2) “ [t] he e ntr y w as obt ai ne d by

the 13 br e a ki ng o f

t he v e hi c l e w i ndow .” See UJI 14-141 0 NMRA . A s the com m ittee 14 co m m en tary to U JI 14 -1410 ex pla ins , “N ew Me xic o’ s br eakin g and e nte ri ng 15 sta tut e . . . r equir es no int en t to co m m it a cr im e upon en te ri ng, onl y the br eakin g and 16 en te ri ng n ee d be sho w n. ” T he re fo re , it is im m at er ia l tha t D ef

en da nt w as br eakin g in 17 to re tr ie ve his ow n pr ope rty . A w itn es s f ro m G old enP ri de te sti fi ed

that sh e sawhim 18 break th e car windo w and rum m age aroun d insid e th e car. Further, Montoy a testified30

1 tha t sh e w as m ad

a t hi m f or br eakin g into h er

c ar , sup portin g th e inf

er en ce that he did 2 not ha ve pe rm iss ion

. T hus, the re w as suf fi ci en t ev ide nc e to s uppo rt the c onvi ct ionf

or 3 br eakin g and e nte ri ng. 4 C. Alleged Pr osecutorial Miscond uct 5 { 49} De fendant argues under F rank lin a nd Boye r that “ the S ta te ’ s r ep eate d a tte m pts 6 to adm it into evi de n ce t h e s t at em ents by Mario Chavez and . .

. Montoy a w as 7 prosecutorial m iscondu ct.” The Stat e r e sp on ds tha t a l tho ug h de f

e ns e c ou nsel obj ected 8 at various poin ts to the testim ony of witnesses Mario Chavez (Chavez) and Montoy a, 9 the r el ie f re que ste d a t tri al w as a li m iting i nstru ct ion , w hic h is gr an te d. T hus, the 10 St at e ar gue s, th ere w as no b as is f or D ef en da nt’ s pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct c la im 11 be ca use the li m iti ng i nstruct io n c ur ed a ny pot en tia l pr ej udi ce r es ult ing f ro m the 12 al le ge d m isc ondu ct

. F urthe r, the St at e ar gue s, D ef en da nt fa ile d to pr es er

ve his c la im 13 of prosecutorial m iscondu ct, and, thus, it is not properly before the Court. W e agre e 14 with the State. 15 { 50} “ Whe n an is sue of pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct is pr es er ve d by ati m el y obj ec tio n 16 a tt r i a l , w e r e vi e wt he d i str i c tc ourt ’ s r ul i ng f or abu se o f d i sc retion.” Sta te v . P aiz , 17 2006 -N MC A -1 44, ¶

53, 140 N

. M. 81 5, 14 9 P. 3d 5 79. H ow ev er , “ [i ] f no o bj ec tio n 18 wa s raised, our review is lim ited to fundam ental err or.” Id

. “ Prosecutorial m iscondu ct31

1 ri se s to the level o f fundam en ta l e rr or w he n it is so e gr eg iou s and h ad suc h a 2 persuasive and prej udicial effec t on the jury ’ s verdict that the defendant was deprived 3 of a fa ir trial. ” St a t e v . Al l en , 200 0- N MS C- 002, ¶ 95, 128 N

. M. 482 , 994 P

. 2d 7 28 4 (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted). 5 { 51} Im

po rta nt ly, Defen da nt m ad e no cl ai m of pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t at tria l. As 6 a re sult, the issue wa s not preserved. Ther efore, our reviewis lim ited to fundam ental 7 error . 8 { 52} De fendant claim s that the State in troduced evidence in dis regard of a district 9 co urt or de r ex cl udi ng the te sti m ony of Ch av ez an d Mon toy a. H ow ev er , the pa ge s to 10 which De fendant cites in r efer ring to a m otion in lim ine to exclude such evid ence ar e 11 ac tua lly a not ic e of a tr ia l sta tus co nf er en ce an d apr etri al sc he dul ing or de r. I n f ac t, 12 there is no m otion in lim ine to e xclude the testim ony of Chavez or Montoy a any wher e 13 in the record. Thus, the State did not attem pt to adm it any evidence which had been 14 previousl y

excluded b y t he district court, and theref ore, there w as no prosecutorial 15 m isc ondu ct

. A s the St at e poi nts out , a t the c los e of tr ia l, de fe nse c ouns el r eque ste d, 16 an d t he jury rece iv ed , a li m it in g in st ru ct io n as to th e sc op e of th e ev id en ce. Se e Sta te 17 v. T re vi no , 1991-NMC A- 085, ¶ 20, 113 N. M. 804, 833 P. 2d 11 70 (“ De fendant m ay 18 n o t co m

plain on appeal w hen the specific relief requested wa s granted.”) . W e32

1 co nc lud e tha t the re w as no p ro se cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct a nd n o e rr or

upo n w hic h to gr an t 2 relief. 3 D . C um ul at ive Er ro r 4 { 53} Finally , De fendant argues that the cum ulative errors alleged r ender the verdict 5 inh er en tly

unr el ia ble

. “ T he doc tr ine of cu m

ula tiv e er ro r ap pli es w he n m

ult ipl e er ro rs , 6 w hic h by

the m se lve s do not co nst itu te re ve rs ibl e er ro r, ar e so s er iou s inthe a ggr eg at e 7 t hatt he y

c um ul a t i ve l y d e pr i ve t he d e f

e nd a nt o f af a i r t r i a l

. ” State v . O rte

ga , 8 2014 -N MS C- 017, ¶

53, 327 P

. 3d 1 076 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 9 om itt ed ). “ T he doc tr ine of c um ula tiv e error

is to b e str ic tly

appl ie d, a nd .

. . c an not 10 [b e] inv oke [d ] if

the r ec or d a s a who le de m onstrate s that [the de fe ndant] re ce ive d a 11 fa i r trial.” Sta te v . Sam ora , 2 0 1 3

- N M S C

- 0 3 8 , ¶ 2 8 , 3 0 7 P

. 3 d

3 2 8 ( a l t e r a t i o n s a nd 12 om iss ionin or igi na l) ( int er na l qu ota tio nm ar

k s a nd c itatio n om itt ed ). Be ca use w e fi nd 13 onl y one e rr or a t tri al , a n e rr or

w hic h w as harm le ss, w e re j ec t D ef en da nt’ s c um

ula tiv e 14 er ro r cl ai m , a nd thus, the doc tr ine of cu m ula tiv e er ro r doe s not en tit le D ef

en dant t o 15 furthe r re lie f. W e the re fo re a ff irm his c onvi ct ion s. 16 III. CON CLU SION 17 { 54} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ion s. 18 { 55} IT IS S O ORDERE D.33

1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 2 BARBAR A J. VIGIL, Justice 3 WE CO NCUR:

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 5 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Ch ief Justice

6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 7 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 9 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 11 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice