Th is d e c isi on wa s no t se le c te d fo r pu

bli c atio n in the Ne w Me xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Ple a se se e Rul e 12-405 NMRA for

restric tions on the citation of non-prece dential di spositions . Please a lso note that this electronic de cision may contain computer- g ener ated err ors or other deviations from the of ficial paper version filed by

the Supreme Court. 1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 F ili ng D at e: S ep te m be r 17, 201 5

3 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 4 Plaintiff-Appellee, 5 v

. N O. S -1 -S C -3 4832 6 WI LLI AM PAGAN-RIVERA, 7 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant.

8 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 9 Br et t R . Lo ve le ss, D ist ri ctJu dg e

10 Robert E . T angora, L .L .C. 11 Robert E . T angora 12 San ta Fe, NM 13 fo r Appe llant

14 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 15 Steven H . Johnston , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 16 San ta Fe, NM 17 for Appellee2

1 DEC ISION 2 DA NIEL S, Justice. 3 { 1} Fo llo w ing aj ur

y tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d j udgm en t a gain st D ef en dant 4 W illiam

Pagan-R ivera and sent e nc e d hi m f or the c r i m e s of first-degre e fe lonym urder, 5 tw o c ount s of

n e g l i g e n tly

c au se d c hil d a

buse , sho oti ng f

ro m am oto r ve hic le , sho oti ng 6 at a dw el lin g or oc cu

pie d bui ldi ng, an d ta m

pe ri ng w iththe e vid en ce . D ef en da nt a sks 7 this Court to rever se his convi ctions on ground s that (1) his right to a speedy trial w as 8 violated, (2) the district cou rt violated phy sician-patient privilege when it adm itted 9 a statem ent that he m ade to officer s while at the hospital, (3) the district court violated 10 the r ule r equir ing the e xc lus ionof w itn es se s f

ro m the co urtr oom w he n it a llo w ed the 11 lead investigativ e agent to rem ain in the courtroom through out trial, (4) the district 12 court erroneously denied his m otion for m istrial, (5) his convictions ar e not supp orted 13 by suf fi ci en t e vid en ce , a nd ( 6) the dis tr ic t c our t’ s e rr or s ris e to r ev er sib le c um ula tiv e 14 error . 15 { 2} W e af

fi rm D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ion s by

nonpr ec ed en tia l de ci sio n, apply ing 16 es tabl i s h e d N e w Mex ic o p rece de nt an d ru le s o f co ur t. See Ru le 12- 405( B) (1 ), ( 3)3

1 NMR A ( stating th at an app ellate court m ay dispo se of a c ase by

nonp rece dential 2 d e c i s i o n w h e r e “[ t ]h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d h a v e b e e n p r e v i o u s l y d e c i d e db y t h e S up r e me 3 Co urt or

Co urt of Appe al s” or

w he re “ [t ] he iss ue s are a nsw er ed by statut e or r ule s of 4 court”). 5 I. BACKGRO UND 6 A . Th e Ev en ts of

N ove m be r 7, 201 0 7 { 3} At trial, the State pre sented the testim ony of Martha Colwell, Ram on Lopez, 8 Anto nio L ope z, and Den ni e St al lwo rth , alo ng wit h i nv es ti ga to rs an d e xp ert w itn es se s. 9 T he w itn es se s de sc ri be d th e fo llo w ing e ve nts

. 10 { 4} MarthaCo lw el l i s th e m ot he r of Ram on L ope z an d A nto nio L ope z w ho o n 11 N ove m

be r 7 20 10, w er e te n and s ev en te eny ears old

. D w ay ne K ing , af

am ily f ri en d 12 w ho w as e igh te eny ears old a t the tim e, w as liv ing w ith the m in the ir apa rtm en t. T he 13 ap ar tm en t w as on the grou nd f loo r in a c om ple x th at ha d tw o a

pa rtm en ts o n th e 14 gr ound

f loo r an d tw o a

pa rtm en ts o n to p. T he apa rtm en t ne xt d oor ha d pr ev iou sly 15 be enr en te d by

E ddi eb er to M or al es , thr oughw hom Ms

. Co l w e l l , R am on, a nd A nto nio 16 ha d m et Defen da nt , Mr. Mora le s’ co us in

. Ms

. Co lwel l and he r so ns h a d k n o wn 17 D ef en dant f or af ewm onths, an d Ram on had ev en spe nt tim e at D ef en da nt’ s ho use 18 w ithD ef

en da nt’ s c hil dr ena nd kne whowto ge t the re f ro m the apa rtm en t. Ms

.4

1 Col we l l ’s neighbo r fr om acr oss th e com

plex, D ennie Stallworth, had also m et 2 D ef en dant thr oughMr

. Mo ra le s. 3 { 5} O n th e nig ht o f N ove m be r 7, 2010 , Ms

. Co lw el l, Ram on, A nto nio , a nd D w ay ne 4 w er e at the ap art m en t ge tti ng r ea dy f or be d w he n th ey

he ar d so m eo ne kno ck

a t the 5 door or ring the doorbell of their apartm ent. D wayne answer ed the door. Ram on saw 6 De fendant enter the apar tm ent, pre ss Dw ay

ne up against th e w all, and poin t a gun at 7 D w ay ne ’ s th ro at

. A nto nio e nte re d th e ro om m om en ts l at er

a nd s awthe sa m e. A nto nio 8 heard D efendant say , “ Give it to m e. I n ee d it all.”; so A nton io sho uted that 9 D ef en dant w as r obbi ng the m an d that “ W ill got the gunin he re . ” A nto nio a nd R am on 10 sawD ef

en da nt f ir e the gunint o th e ce ili ng o f the apa rtm en t. 11 { 6} Ms

. Co lw el l, w ho w as in he r be dr oom in the apa rtm en t, he ar d th e guns hot

. S he 12 cam e out

of he r ro om

a nd s awD ef

enda nt an d D w ay

ne str uggl ing ove r the gunin 13 D ef en dant’ s hand. S he r anba ck to he r be dr oom

to ge t a m et al ba se ba ll ba t. 14 Me an w hil e, the str

ugg le be tw ee n D w ay

ne a nd D ef

en da nt m ove d ou tsi de the 15 ap ar tm en t. A ft er

pus hin g R am on o ut of the w ay fo r his sa fe ty , A nto nio a nd D w ay ne 16 “ rushed” Def

endant out side the apartm ent door. 17 { 7} A nto nio , Ram on, a nd M s. Co lw el l t es tif ie d a bout the de ta ils of

the f igh t 18 out sid e. I n the str

uggl e fo r the gunin D ef

en da nt’ s hands, D ef

en da nt f ir ed tw o sh ots ,5

1 one of w hic h w as “ tow ar ds” A nto nio

. A nto nio w as not hi t, b ut the bul le t w en t i nto 2 the out si de w al l of

the ne ighbor ing apa rtm en t. A t so m e poi nt, Ms

. Co lw el l hi t 3 D ef en dant i n th e ba ck

w iththe m et al ba t, but

D ef en da nt d id no t rea ct

. S he swung 4 ag ai n and h it D ef

en da nt i n th e ba ck

of the he ad

. Mr

. Mo ra le s dr ove up i n aw hit e 5 SU V , go to u to f

t h e v e h i c l e , a n dr a n up t o D e f e n d a n t , p u l l i n g h i m

up a n da ski ng 6 D ef en dant wha t he w as doi ng. A s M r. Mo ra le s and D ef en da nt h ea de d ba ck

to the 7 vehicle, D efendant pointed th e gun at Antonio but did not fire the gun. M r. Morales 8 got in the dr ive r’ s se at , an d D ef en da nt got in the pa sse nge r se at of the ve hic le

. A s th e 9 ve hi cl e p ul le d a way , sh ot s wer e fi redfro m th e p as se ng er wi nd ow. 10 { 8} Mr

. S ta llw orth, the ne ighbor , he ar d th e soun ds of the fi ght an d w en t ou tsi de his 11 apartm ent to see what w as happening . Mr . S tallworth and Ram on te s t i fi ed that 12 D ef en dant f ir ed the gun in the dir ec tio n of Mr

. S ta llw orth’ s a

pa rtm en t. Mr

. S ta llw orth 13 sawpe opl e dis pe rs ing , inc lud ing D ef en da nt, D w ay

ne , an d A nto nio

. H e sawD w ay ne 14 runni ng aro und a car in th e pa rk ing lot a nd s awhim

c oll ap se a s he w as r

unni ng. 15 D w ay ne ca lle d out that he ha d bee n shot, an d Ms. Co lw el l foun d Dw ay ne ly ing in the 16 park ing lot

w ithagun shot

w ound

. 17 { 9} Th e p o l i ce arri v ed s ec o n d s l at er , a n dRa m o n g u i d ed t h em to De fe n d an t ’s 18 re si denc e. P oli ce sur

ro unde d D ef

en da nt’ s r es ide nc e an d sawanum be r of pe opl e6

1 ins ide

. T he pol ic e dir ec te d th e pe opl e in the r es ide nc e to e xit “ in fro nt of

the 2 residence. ” O ne or two w om en and two children cam e out of the front of the house. 3 Shortly after the announ cem ents we re giv en to com e o ut of t he front, pol ice offic ers 4 sawtw o m enle av ing f ro m aba ck doo r. T he tw o m en le ft the h ouse qui ck ly a nd 5 “ loo ke d ali ttl e sur

pr ise d. ” Po lic e of

fi ce rs te sti fi ed

that D ef en da nt g ot o n th e gr ound 6 n e a r , b u tn o t t o u c h i n g , at o y du mp t r u c k

. Of f i c e r s t h e n t o o kDe f

e n d a n ti n t o c u s t o d y. 7 { 10} Fi el d dete ct ive s photog ra phe d D ef en da nt’ s w ound s, inc lud ing aw ound on the 8 w eb bin g be tw ee n hi s thum b and f or ef ing er a nd a wo und to h is h ea d. D et ec tiv e 9 A ndr ea O rt iz an d an oth er de te ct ive int er vie w ed D ef

en da nt af te r advis ing him

of his 10 co nst itu tio na l r igh ts and o bta ini ng h is w ai ve r. D ef en da nt d id n ot t es tif

y a t tri al , but 11 the vid eo r ec or din g of that i nte rv ie ww as play ed in fu ll fo r the j ur

y a t tri al

. 12 { 11} A cc or din g to the te stim ony of D et ec tiv e O rt iz , D ef

en da nt t old

the f oll ow ing 13 sto ry in his int er

vie w . D ef en da nt w en t to the apartm en t to pur ch as e ab out $25 w orth 14 of m arij uana from

Ms. C olwell and A nton io. D efendant had asked h i s co usin Mr. 15 Morales to drive him there. On ce h e wa s at the apartm ent, he c laim ed a “ Black 16 y oung er

m al e” a tte m

pte d to se ll him cr ac k co ca ine , a nd w he n D ef en da nt r ef

use d to 17 buy cocaine the interaction turned violent. In the doorway of the apartm ent, the Bla ck 18 m ale and Antonio fought Def endant. D efendant w as able to get back to the vehicle,7

1 an d he a nd M r. Mo ra le s ret ur ne d hom e. D ef en da nt d en ie d sh oot ing a ny one a nd 2 denied that firearm s wer e used in the confrontation . D efendant claim e d tha t he injure d 3 both his hand and his head when he accidentally placed h is hand on the Tonka truck 4 w hil e ge tti ng “ dow n to the gr ound ” in h is b ac k y ar d a t po lic e ins tr uc tio n. D ef

en dant 5 de nie d th at

he ha d be enstr

uc k by aba se ba ll ba t. 6 { 12} T he inv es tig at ionf ound no cr ac k co ca ine on D w ay ne or a t the loc at ionof

the 7 shoo tin g. Ms

. Co lw el l, A nto nio , a nd R am on a ll te sti fi ed that the y saw D ef

en da nt w ith 8 a re vol ve r at

the sc en e of th e shoo tin g, sho rt ly be fo re D ef

en da nt’ s arr es t a t hi s 9 re s i d en ce . On e p o l i c e o f f i c e rs aw a g u n cl ea n i n g k i ti n a b ed ro o m o f D ef en d an t ’s 10 hous e af

te r D ef en da nt’ s arr es t, bu t a fu ll se ar chof the hou se a nd b ac k y ar d di d no t 11 locate the re volv er. 12 { 13} Field investig ators photo graphed .40-caliber bullet casings and bullet 13 fr ag m en ts f

ound a t the sho oti ng s ce ne . A n A lbu que rque P oli ce D ep ar tm en t sp ec ia lis t 1 4 i n f i r e a rm s a n d t o o l ma rk s t e s t i f i e dt h a tt h o s e c a s i n g s w e r e a l l f i r e df r o m th e s a me 15 gun. A m ed ic al e xa m ine r pe rform ed a n auto psy

on D w ay

ne a nd t es tif

ie d th at his 16 cause of d ea th was a guns hot wound to the torso and th at the bullet that kil led 17 D w ay ne w as f ir ed f ro m adis tanc e gr eate r than tw o f ee t. 18 { 14} A j ur

y f ound D ef enda nt g uil ty

of se co nd- de gr ee m

ur de r, f ir st- de gr ee f

el ony8

1 m ur de r, kidna

ppi ng, tw o c ount s of

ne gli ge ntl y ca

use d chil d abus e, a tte m

pt t o c om m it 2 the f el ony of ar

m ed ro bbe ry , shoo tin g fr om a m oto r ve hic le , a ggr av at ed a ssa ult w ith 3 a de ad ly

w ea pon, sho oti ng at a dw el lin g, ne gli ge nt u se of ade ad ly w ea pon, a nd 4 tam pering with evidence. The dis trict cou rt v acated the sentences for second-degree 5 m urder, kidnapp ing, attem

pt to com m it the felony

of arm ed robbery , and aggravated 6 as sault w itha de ad ly

w ea pon to avoi d un law fu l m

ult ipl e puni shm en t, in lig ht o f the 7 co nvi ct iona nd s en te nc e fo r fi rs t- de gree fe lon y m ur de r. T he c ourt a lso va cate d th e 8 se nte nc e fo r ne gli ge nt u se of a de ad ly w ea pon, c onc lud ing that the se nte nc e fo r 9 shoo ting at a dwelling addressed it. T he court sentenced De fendant to life 10 im pr iso nm en t pl us e igh t y ears . 11 { 15} Defen da nt ap pe al edhi s c o n v i c ti on s p ur su an t t o N.M. C on st . Art. VI, Sec. 2 12 ( “ App e a l s f

r om a j ud gm e nt of t he di str i c t c ourt i m po si ng a se nt e nc e of .

. . life 13 im prisonm ent shall be taken directly to the suprem e court. ”). 14 II. DISC US SION 15 { 16} T he re is no dis put e tha t D ef en da nt h as pr es er

ve d a ll of the iss ue s r ai se d f

or thi s 16 Court’ s rev i ew , ex cept as noted below in relation to whether the district court 17 pr ope rl y

de nie d D ef

en da nt’ s m oti on f

or m istri al

. 18 A. De fend ant’s Right to a Sp eedy Tr ial Was Not Violated9

1 { 17} T he S ixth A m en dm en t of the U nit ed

S ta te s C onst itu tio n and A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 2 14 o f the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n gu ar an te e a de fe ndant the r igh t t o aspe edy tr ia l. 3 Sta te v . G arz a , 2009-NMS C-038, ¶ 10, 146 N. M. 499, 21 2 P. 3 d 3 87. Whether a 4 de fe ndant’ s r igh t ha s be envio la te d d ep en ds o n th e pa rt ic ular ci rc um stanc es of the 5 cas e. Sta te v . Spe arm an , 2012 -N MSC- 023, ¶ 16, 283 P. 3d 272. T his Court balances 6 fo ur f ac tor s or igi na lly

a rt ic ula te d by

the U nit ed

S ta te s S up rem e Co urt i n Barker v

. 7 W ing o : 1 ) t h e l en g t h o f t h e d el ay, 2 ) t h e r ea s o n s fo r t h e d el ay, 3 ) t h e d ef en d an t ’s 8 as se rti on of hi s rig ht , an d 4) the act ua l preju di ce to t he de fen da nt

. See 407 U

. S. 514 , 9 530 (1 972) ; G arz a , 200 9- N MS C- 038, ¶ 13. 10 { 18} Fo l l o wi n g a h ea ri n g , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt en t er ed an o rd erd en yin g De fe n d an t ’s 11 m otion to dism iss for vi olation of Defendant’ s right to a speedy trial. This Court gives 12 defere nce to the factua l fi n d ings o f the trial c ourt but weighs th e Barker f ac tor s de 13 no vo . Spe arm an , 201 2- N MS C- 023, ¶ 19. Be ca use D ef en da nt doe s not ch al le nge the 14 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s of f ac t, w e w ei gh the f

ac tor s ba se d onthe se que nc e of e ve nts 15 as fou nd by the d i s tri ctco ur t. See 1 2 -2 1 3 (A )( 4 ) N M RA (s t at i n g t h at an ap p el l an t ’s 16 br ie f in ch ie f “ sha ll se t fo rth a spe ci fi c atta ck on an y fi ndi ng, or suc h f ind ing sha ll be 17 deem ed conclusiv e”). 18 1. The L ength of the De lay Presum ptively P reju diced De fend ant10

1 { 19} De fendant’ s right to a sp eedy trial attached either u pon his arre st on Novem ber 2 8, 2 01 0, o r atth e ti m e of hi s in di ct m en t o n No ve m be r 23 , 20 10

. See Salandr e v. Sta te , 3 1991 -N MS C- 016, ¶

13, 111 N

. M. 422 , 806 P. 2d 562. In “ co m ple x” ca se s, the le ngth 4 of the de lay is “ pr es um

pti ve ly pr ej udi ci al ” w he re the ti m e be tw ee n th e atta ch m en t of 5 the right to speedy trial and the trial date that triggers a Barker analy sis is greater than 6 ei gh te en m on th s. See Sta te v . G arz a , 200 9- N MS C- 038, ¶ ¶ 2, 21, 42. 7 { 20} It

is undi sput ed tha t thi s ca se is “ co m ple x” giv enthat D ef

en da nt’ s in dic tm en t 8 contained twenty

counts, includin g one count o f m urder in the first degree , and giv en 9 tha t, at one poi nt dur ing inv es tig at ion , the w itn es s lis t i nc lud ed f if ty -e igh t w itn es se s, 10 se ve ra l of

w hom w er e ex pe rt

w itn es se s. T he dis tr ic t co urt, co unt ing fr om the day of 11 D efend an t’s ar

re st t o th e da te of

the f ina l tri al se tti ng o n F eb ru ar y 24, 201 4, f

ound 12 tha t the c as e ha d be enpe ndi ng f or atot al of f orty m onths, e xc ee din g th e ei ght ee n13 m onth threshold for a “ com plex case”and necessitating further inquiry into th e other 14 Barker

fac t o r s . Alt ho ug h t he Sta te do es no t d is pu te th e d is tri ctco ur t’s fi nd in g, a 1 5 d el ay o f p re s u m

p t i v el y p re

ju d i ci al l en g t h d o es n o tn ec es s ar i l y v i o l at e D ef en d an t ’s 16 spe edy

tr ia l r igh t; it is “ sim

ply atr igg er ing m ec ha nis m , r equir ing f urthe r inquir

y int o 17 the Barker

fac tors.” G arz a , 200 9- N MS C- 038, ¶ 21. 18 2. Th e D ef

en se Wa s R es po ns ib le f

or t he D el ays in Ge tt in g t o T ri al11

1 { 21} Courts m ay

assign weig h t s to the occurrences of delay in determ ining which 2 p a rt y wa s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e d e l a y: 3 T he r ea sons f

or ape ri od o f the de lay

m ay ei the r he igh te n or tem pe r the 4 pr ejud ic e to th e d efen da nt cau se d b y t h e le ng th of t he de la y . Barker 5 ide nti fi ed

thr ee ty pe s of de lay , ind ic at ing that di ff er en t w ei ght s sh oul d 6 be ass ig ne d t o d iff eren t re as on s fo r th e d el ay . Firs t, Barker held that [a] 7 de lib er at e atte m pt t o de lay

the tr ial in ord er

to ha m pe r the de fe nse 8 sh ou ld be weig ht edhe av il y ag ai ns t t he go ve rn m en t. . . . Seco nd , Barker 9 d i s t i n g u i s h e di n t e n t i o n a l d e l a y fr o m n e g l i g e n to r a d mi n i s t r a t i v e d e l a y, 10 and held that [a] m ore neutral reason such as neglig ence or overc rowded 11 co urts s houl d be w ei ght ed le ss h eavil y

but ne ve rthe le ss sho ul d be 12 co nsi de re d si nc e the ult im at e re spon sib ili ty f or suc hc ir cu m stanc es m

ust 13 re st w ith the gove rn m en t rathe r than w ith the de fe ndant.

. . . Fi na lly , a 14 valid r eason, such as a m issin g witness, should serve to justify 1 5 ap p r o p r i a t e d e l a y. 16 G arz a , 200 9- N MS C- 038, ¶ ¶ 25- 27 ( al te ratio ns i n or igi na l) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks 17 an d c itatio ns o m itt ed ) (d isc uss ing Barker , 407 U. S. at 531). 18 { 22} T he dis tr ic t cour t foun d th at

the re w as no i ndi catio n inthe r ec or d th at the S ta te 19 ha d in te nti ona lly

de lay ed thi s c as e. T ha t f

ind ing is not

dis put ed on a ppe al

. D ef

en dant 20 him self stipulated twice to continue the trial setting s despite havin g n o t i ce that 21 adm ini str at ive de lay

due to ch an gin g j udge s an d ove rc ro w de d do ck et s w oul d c au se 22 unus ua l de lay

in br ing ing thi s c as e to tri al

. A dm ini str at ive de lay is w ei ghe d a ga ins t 23 the state “ light ly .” G arz a , 200 9- N MS C-0 38 , ¶ 26. D el ay c an not be w ei ghe d in 24 De fendant’ s favor w here D efendant him self sought and obtained repeated12

1 p o s tp o n emen t s an d co n t i n u an ce s : i n 2 0 1 1 , 2 0 1 2 , an d 2 0 1 3 . I n g ra n t i n g De fe n d an t ’s 2 la st m oti on t o c ont inu e, the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at e ve n by A ugus t 23 , 201 3, 3 di sc ov ery was st il l “ on go in g” an d t ha t p ret ria l i nt erv ie ws were “ in co m pl et e.” 4 { 23} T he f

ac t tha t di sc ove ry

w as inc om

ple te a t this la te tim e w as the re sul t not of the 5 St at e’ s a ct ion s bu t of

the pa ce of

the de fe nse pr ep ar at ion

. D es pit e the e ff orts o f the 6 St at e to ass ist in pre tr ia l pre pa ratio n, the de fe nse c au se d r ep eate d de lay s. T he S ta te 7 invit ed defense counsel to participate in interviews of prosecution wi t n es s es 8 sc he dul ed

on s ev er al da te s inthe sum m er of 201 1 and the S pr ing of 2 01 2, bu t the 9 de fe nse f

ai le d to take a dvanta ge of tho se opp ortun iti es . 10 { 24} A lth oughw e ar e co nc er ne d a bout the le ngth of

ti m e thi s c as e too k to ge t t o 11 tr ia l, w e m

ust c onc lud e tha t the ult im at e blam e lie s no t wit h th e pr ose cu tio n or the 12 court but with the defense. 13 3. D ef

en da ntD id N ot M ea ni ng fu lly A sse rtHi s Righ t to S pe ed y T ri al 14 { 25} “ [W e] a cc or d w ei ght to the ‘ fr eque nc y an d for ce ’ of the de fe ndant’ s ob

j ec tio ns 15 to the delay ,” which m ay be “ an indication of w hether a def endant was denied needed 16 acce ss to s p ee d y trial over his objection.” G arz a , 200 9- N MS C- 038, ¶ 32 ( quot ing 17 Barker , 407 U. S. at 529). D efendant claim s he asserted his right to sp eedy trial three 18 tim es . T he f

ir st, in January

201 1, w as ar out ine de m an d w iththe f ili ng o f de fe nse13

1 co unse l’ s e ntr

y of appe ar an ce nin e w ee ks a ft er D ef en da nt’ s arre st and lon g bef or e the 2 de fe nse a ct

ua lly a nnounc ed

it w as r ea dy

f or tr ia l. T he se co nd ass er

tio n wa s ade m an d 3 inc lud ed

in a m oti on t o c om

pe l di sc los ur e fi le d af

ew m onths lat er , w hic h D ef en dant 4 withdrew , a gain lon g before the defe nse was a ctually rea dy to go t o trial. The third 5 assertion was not a dem and for speedy trial but instead a m otion to dism iss for lack 6 of spe edy tr ia l, f ile d onJanuary

10, 201 4, j ust

af ewm onths a ft er

D ef en dant 7 suc ce ssf

ull y m ove d to va cate a nothe r tr ia l se tti ng in Se pte m be r 2013 an d six w ee ks 8 be fo re the a ct

ua l tri al date in Mar ch201 4. N one of tho se thr ee c la im ed

a sse rt ion s, 9 part ic ularl y

w he n view ed

in the c ont ex t of

D ef en da nt’ s own a tte m

pts to av oid

his 10 ow n j udgm en t da y , re fl ec t an y se ri ous int er es t in ex er ci sin g his ri ght to a spe edy

tr ia l. 11 See id. ¶ 32 ( sta tin g th at ade fe ndant’ s m oti ons tha t are bound t o sl owdow n th e 12 proceedings are inconsi stent w ith a defendant’ s assertion of his righ t to speedy trial). 13 4. The D elay in Re aching Trial C aused Lit tle A ctual P reju dice 14 { 26} T o ob ta in a

dis m iss al of

a ch ar ge or re ve rs al of a con vic tio n f or vio la tio n of

the 15 ri ght to spe edy tr ia l, ade fe ndant m

ust ge ne ra lly sho wpart ic ulari ze d pr ej udi ce of the 16 ki nd th e sp eed y

tri al rig ht is de si gn ed to pro te ctag ai ns t. G arz a , 20 09 -NMSC -0 38 , ¶ 17 39. 18 T he U nit ed Sta te s S upr em e Co urt ha s id en tif ie d th re e int er es ts 19 unde r w hic h w e an al y ze prejud ice to the de fe ndant: ( i) to pr ev en t14

1 oppressiv e pretria l inca rc er at ion; (ii) to m inim ize anxiety and concern 2 of

the a cc use d; and ( iii ) to lim it the poss ibi lity tha t the de fe nse w ill be 3 im

pa ir ed

. A s to the f

irs t two ty

pe s of pr ej udi ce , [ s] om e de gr ee of 4 oppressio n and anxiety is inher en t fo r ever

y defendant who is j ailed 5 wh i l e a wa i t i n g t ri al . Th er ef o re , we we i g h t h i s fa ct o r i n t h e d ef en d an t ’s 6 favor

onl y w he re the pr etri al incarcera ti on o r the a nxi ety suf fe re d is 7 undu e. . . . T he thi rd ty pe of pr ejudi ce is the m ost

se ri ous. A ga in, 8 how ev er , it

is ne ce ssary

f or ade fe ndant t o su

bst an tiate thi s ty

pe of 9 prej udice. 10 G arz a , 200 9- N MS C- 038, ¶ ¶ 35- 36 ( al te ratio n inor igi na l) ( int er na l quot at ionm ar

ks 11 and citations o m itted). W e addres s De fend ant’ s argum ents that his particularize d 12 pr ej udi ce inc lud ed

the a nxi ety

he e xpe ri en ce d duri ng h is l ong pr etri al inc ar ce ratio n, 13 the los s of his j ob, the los s of his f am ily hom e an d be lon gin gs, the hard shi p to his 14 fam ily , a nd a

va gue a sse rt ionthat po te nti al de fe nse w itn es se s ha d m ove d or c oul d no t 15 be loc at ed

. 16 { 27} W e re co gni ze that l en gth y pr etri al inc ar ce ratio n is stre ssf ul and c anof te n r es ult 17 in ha rd sh ip s t o a de fen da nt an d th e de fen da nt ’s fam il y . G arz a , 20 09 -NMSC -0 38 , ¶ 18 35. I t sh oul d be m ini m iz ed w he re ve r re asona

bly pos sib le , but

w e ha ve ha d to 19 ac know le dge tha t this is the ty pe of pr ej udi ce , “ ‘ inh er en t f or e ve r[ y ] de fe ndant who 20 is ja iled while aw aiting trial,’ ” that w e only we igh in a def

en dant’ s favor if such 21 prej udice or anx i et y

is “ undu e. ” Id

. (a l t er at i o n i n o ri g i n al ) ( ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). We 22 cannot conclud e th at t h i s em otion al and financial anxiety is undu e w here the delay15

1 w as the r es ult

of D ef en da nt’ s own m oti ons to c ont inu e the tr ia l se tti ng. 2 { 28} Most of the consequ ences of incar ceration in this case we re not caused 3 pr im ar ily

by the le ngt h of the de lay

be tw ee n arr es t and tri al

. D ef en da nt l ost

his j ob 4 im m ed ia te ly upon his ar

re st, an d his fam ily los t the ir hom e an d be lon gin gs w ith in the 5 fi rs t m onth of

his inc ar ce ratio n. D ef

en da nt’ s anxi ety

li ke ly h ad be enar es ult

of the 6 fa ct of his pli ght

a nd b le ak

f uture pr ospe ct s and n ot a r esul t of th e length of

his 7 inc ar ce ratio n be ca

use he w as f

ir st tre at ed

f or de pr es sio n soon af

te r his ini tia l arr es t. 8 { 29} Where the f

ocus is on the “ m ost serious” potenti al form of prej udice, w hether 9 th e d el ay

im pa ire d t he de fen se , G arz a , 200 9- N MS C- 038, ¶ 35, D ef en da nt f ai ls t o 10 establ i s h that his defense was im paired by the length of tim e that passed betwee n 11 ar re st and tri al

. D ef

en da nt’ s own in ve sti ga tor a dm itt ed that as e ar ly

a s Ju ly 201 1, j ust 12 ei ght m onths a ft er

D ef en da nt’ s arr es t, she w as una ble to loc at e any wit ne ss es w ho 13 co uld sup port D ef

en da nt’ s st or

y . E ve n assu m ing an y suc h w itn es se s e ve r ex ist ed a nd 14 ev er ha d any e xc ulp at or

y te sti m ony

to of fe r, the ab se nc e of the w itn es se s w as not 15 ca use d by the de lay . I n fa ct , the de lay s that w er e suc ce ssf ull y obt ai ne d by the de fe nse 16 inc re as ed

opp ortun iti es to loc at e an y r ea l e xc ulp at or

y w itn es se s. W e the re fo re f ind 17 no sub stance in De fendant’ s claim that he suffere d an im

pairm ent to his d efense. 18 { 30} W e conclude that Def endant has failed to sho w the kind of prej udice that16

1 w oul d r equir e a re ve rs al of his c onvi ct ion s f

or vio la tio n of

his r igh t t o sp ee dy

tr ia l. 2 B. De fend ant’s Hospital St atem ents t o Office rs Were Not Pr ivileged 3 { 31} Im

m ediately after De fendant had been taken into cust ody , O ffice r H ernandez 4 an d O ff

ic er W eb ste r tr an spor

te d D ef en da nt t o a hosp ita l. A t the hos pit al , D ef en dant, 5 Of ficer He rnandez, and Of

ficer W ebster entered one of the treatm ent room s. O ffice r 6 H er nande z w as a ske d to te sti fy a t tri al to w ha t De fe ndant sai d whi le in the tr eatm en t 7 ro om . D ef

en da nt obj ec te d an d ar gue d tha t an y sta te m en ts m ad e in the tr eatm en t r oom 8 w er e m ad e fo r the pur pose of m ed ic al dia gnos is a

nd p ro te ct ed

by the phy si ci an 9 patient privilege. 10 { 32} Outside the presence of the ju ry , O ffice r H ernandez stated that w hile he, 11 O ff ic er W eb ste r, an d De fe ndant w er e in a tr eatm en t r oom

a t the hos pit al , D ef

en dant 12 sa id tha t hi s in

j ur ie s w er e the re sul t of fa lli ng on a T onka tr uc k. D ef en da nt s ai d th is 13 re pe at ed ly , both in the pr es en ce of m ed ic al pe rs onne l and w he n D ef en da nt w as a lon e 14 with O ffice r H ernandez and O ffice r W ebster. The district court co n cl uded that 15 D ef en dant’ s sta te m en ts to the of fi ce rs w he n m ed ic al pe rs onne l w er e ab se nt w er e not 16 pr ivi le ge d. T he c ourt pe rm itt ed O ff ic er H er na nde z to t es tif

y in the pr es en ce of

the 17 j ury only about Defe ndant’s statem ents m ad e to the officer s when no m edical 1 8 p er s o n n el we re p re s en t . Of fi ce r H er n an d ez ac co rd i n g l y testified that De fendant stated17

1 se ve ra l t im es that hi s in j ur ie s c am e ab ou t f

ro m ha vin g f al le n onaT onka

tr uc k and 2 tha t D ef

en da nt a ppe ar ed to fi nd this a m

usi ng. 3 { 33} Defen da nt arg ue s onappe al that the dis tr ic t c ourt a dm itt ed the state m en t i n 4 vio la tio n of Ru le 11- 504 N MR A

. T his Co urt r ev ie w s an a ppl ic at ionof

Ru le 11- 504 5 to th e fact s de no vo . State v. R oper , 199 6- N MC A -0 73, ¶ 4, 122 N

. M. 126 , 921 P

. 2d 6 322; Sta te v . A tta wa

y , 1994-NMS C-011, ¶¶

6, 10, 117 N.M. 141, 870 P. 2d 10 3 (“ If 7

. . . the que sti on r equir es us t o c onsi de r le ga l conc ep ts in the m ix o f fa ct a nd l awa nd 8 to e xe rc ise j udgm en t a bout t he va lu es that anim at e le ga l pr inc ipl es , the n . . . the 9 questio n shou ld be classified as one of lawand re v i ew ed de novo.” (internal 10 quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). 11 { 34} A “ pa tie nt h as a pr ivi le ge to re fu se to disc los e, or to pr ev en t any

oth er pe rs on 12 fr om dis cl osi ng, ac onf

ide nti al c om

m uni catio n m ad e fo r the pur pose of dia gnos is o r 13 treatm ent of the patient’ s phy sical, m ental, or em otion al conditio n.” R ule 11-504 (B). 1 4 Th e p ri v i l eg e o n l y ap p l i es t o co m m u n i ca t i o n s “ b et we en t h e p at i en tan dt h e p at i en t ’s 15 phy sic ian, psy ch oth er ap ist , or state or na tio na lly

li ce nse d m en ta l- he al th the rapi st .” 16 Id

. A state m en t be tw ee n apa tie nt and a phy sic ian is conf ide nti al “ if m ad e pr iva te ly 17 an d not int en de d fo r furthe r dis cl osur e ex ce pt to oth er pe rs ons in f urthe ranc e of

the 18 purpos e of the com

m unication .” Rule 11-504(A)( 5).18

1 { 35} Be ca

use the dis tr ic t cour

t wa s ca re fu l not to perm it the of fi ce rs to te sti fy to any 2 sta te m en t D ef

en da nt m ad e to, or

e ve n inthe pr es en ce of m ed ic al pe rs onne l, Ru le 11- 3 504 cl earl y

pr ovi de s no pr ivi le ge that w oul d pr ev en t the of fi c er s f ro m te sti fy ing about 4 De fendant’ s statem en ts. W e theref ore need not reac h the questio n whether 5 De fendant’ s other statem ents to m edical p ersonnel that he had fallen on a toy truck 6 w er e re al ly

m ad e fo r the pur

pose of dia gnos is o r tr eatm en t. N or do w e ne ed

to ad dr es s 7 the questio n whether statem ents to m edical personnel in the presence of officer s wer e 8 m ad e w ith ex pe ct at ion s of pri va cy or w he the r the y

w er e ins te ad

m ad e w iththe int en t 9 that the officer s hear them as an alter

native explanation of the wounds ey ew itnesses 10 to the sho oting said had been inflicted during the struggle at the hom icide scene. 11 { 36} T he dis tr ic t c ourt c or rectl y rule d th at

D ef en da nt’ s st at em en ts m ad e to the 12 of fi ce rs w he n no m ed ic al pe rs onne l w er e ar ound w er e not pr ivi le ge d. 13 C . Th e D ist ri ctC ou rtD id N ot Abuse I ts D isc re ti on in A llo w in g D et ec ti ve 14 Or ti z to R em ain in t he C ou rt ro om D ur in g T ri al 15 { 37} T he r

ule e xc lud ing w itn es se s st at es that “ [a ] t a pa rty ’ s r eque st, the c ourt m ust 16 or de r w itn es se s e xc lud ed so tha t the y

c an not he ar oth er w itn es s’ te sti m ony , o r the 17 co urt m ay

do s o onit s own. ” Ru le 11- 615 N MR A

. T he pur

pose of the r ule e xc lud ing 18 w itn es se s is to giv e the a dve rs e pa rty a n op portu nity

to ex pose inc onsi ste nc ie s in 19 te sti m ony

a nd t o pre ve nt the poss ibi lity of one w itn es s shap ing te sti m ony to tha t of19

1 an ot he r wit ne ss . Sta te v . O rti z , 197 5- N MC A -1 12, ¶ 33, 88 N. M. 370, 540 P

. 2d 8 50. 2 { 38} D ef

en da nt f ile d apr etri al m oti on i n li m ine inv oki ng Ru le 11- 615. T he S ta te 3 ha d de sig na te d D et ec tiv e A ndr ea O rt iz , w ho w as re spon sib le f or the e nti re ty

of the 4 inv es tig at ion , a s the le ad inv es tig at ive ag en t so that she co uld sit a t c ouns el ta

ble to 5 assist the prosecuti on. D etective Ortiz wa s also a witness the State intended to call at 6 tr ia l be ca

use she w as the m ai n of

fi ce r on the ca se an d ha d w ri tte n the pol ic e re ports. 7 A ft er he ar ing a rg um en ts o n the m oti on, the dis tr ic t cour t all ow ed D et ec tiv e O rt iz to 8 stay in the c ourtroom

but ordered her not to discu ss the testim ony or case with other 9 w itn es se s. T he c ourt e xc lud ed al l othe r w itn es se s and r equir ed that the y not dis cu ss 10 their testim onies with each other. 11 { 39} De fendant challenges the district court’s pre trial ruling on ap p ea l . “ The tr ial 12 co urt ha s br oa d di sc re tio n in the ap pli catio n of Ru le 11- 615. W e w ill not dis tur b th e 13 de ci sio n of

the tr ia l cour

t abse nt a c le ar abuse of thi s di sc re tio n and p re

j udi ce to the 14 com plainin g party .” State v. H ernandez , 199 3- N MS C-00 7, ¶ 36, 115 N

. M. 6, 846 15 P. 2d 31 2 (citation om itted). 16 { 40} Purs ua nt t o R

ule 11- 615, adis tr ic t c ourt i s no t auth or iz ed to ex cl ude aw itn es s 17 fro m h ea ri n g the testim ony of others if the w itness is “ an officer or em ploy ee of a 18 party that is n ot a

na tur al pe rs on, a ft er

be ing de sig na te d a s th e pa rty ’ s r ep re se nta tiv e20

1 by it s a tto rn ey . ” Ru le 11 -6 15 (B ). A n in ve sti ga tiv e of fi ce r so “ de sig na te d” a nd 2 ap po in te d as a wit ne ss by th e st at e is su ch an off ic er. State v. Chavez , 3 1983 -N MC A -1 20, ¶

12, 100 N

. M. 730 , 676 P

. 2d 257 (“ A llo w ing co unse l for the S ta te 4 to h av e aninv es tig at ive a ge nt at c ouns el ta ble thr ough out

the tr ia l ev en tho ugh the 5 ag en t i s or

m ay be aw itn es s is a n ex cept ionto the r ule of e xc lus ion

. ”)

. Whe re the 6 St at e ha d c lea rl y

ide nti fi ed

D et ec tiv e O rt iz a s it s le ad inv es tig at ive of

fi ce r an d 7 De fendant did no t challenge De tective Or tiz’ s role as the lead investigative officer, 8 the district court did n ot abuse its d iscretion in allowing Detective O rtiz, who w as 9 al so a w itn es s f or the S ta te , to re m ai n in the c ourtr oom thr ough out

the pr oc ee din gs. 10 Sta te v . R

ya n , 2006-NMC A- 044, ¶ 4 0, 13 9 N. M. 354, 132 P. 3d 10 40 (concludi ng that 11 w he re the state ide nti fi ed an of fi ce r as its le ad

inv es tig at ive of

fi ce r an d th e de fe ndant 12 did no t dispu te that fac t, the district court ac ted “ we ll within establish ed 13 j ur isp ru de nc e” to al lowthe of fi ce r, w ho w as al so a w itn es s f or the state , to re m ai n in 1 4 the co urt r o o m

t h r o u g h o u tt h e t r i a l )

. A d d i t i o n a l l y , D e f e n d a n th a s n o ts h o w n how 15 having De tective Or

tiz in the courtroom prej udiced his defense. W e af firm the district 1 6 c o u rt ’s p r e t r i a l r

u l i n g a l l o w i n g D e t e c t i v e O rt i z t o r e ma i n i n t h e c o u rt r o o m. 17 D. The D istrict C ourt D id N ot Ab use Its Discre tion in D enying D efen dant’ s 18 M ot ion f

or M ist ri al 19 { 41} De fendant asserts on appeal that he m oved for m istrial based upo n Off icer21

1 H er nande z an d D et ec tiv e O rt iz ha vin g r em ai ne d inthe c ourtr oo m “ w he n th e 2 re co rd ing of D ef

en da nt’ s sta te m en t w as pr es en te d. ” T his is an in ac curate state m en t 3 o f t h e r e c o rd as t o wh en De fe n d an tm o v ed fo r mis t ri al . Du ri n g t h e S t at e’s 4 exam ination of D etective O rtiz, the State play ed a video recording fo r t h e jury that 5 co nsi ste d of

D et ec tiv e O rt iz ’ s N ove m be r 8, 201 0, int er

vie wof D ef en da nt and 6 inc lud ed

D ef en da nt’ s sta te m en ts tha t the T onka tr uc k wa s the ca

use of his inj ur ie s. 7 D ef en dant did not obj ec t to the adm iss ion or pr es en ta tio n of the int er vie wr ec or din g 8 an d did not m ove fo r m istri al a t any ti m e ba se d onthe pr es en ta tio n of the r ec or din g. 9 T he r ec or d do es not

r ef le ct that any lawe nf or ce m en t of

fic ers were pr es en t i n th e 1 0 c o u rt r o o m at t h a tt i me o t h e r t h a n De t e c t i v e Or t i z , t h e o f f i c e r t e s t i f yi n g . Ac c o r d i n g l y, 11 th atis su e as fram ed in Defen da nt ’s b rie fs on ap pe al ha s n ot be en pre se rv ed

. See Ru le 12 12- 216( A ) N MR

A ( “ T o pr es er

ve a que sti on fo r re vie w it m ust ap pe ar tha t a

r uli ng o r 13 decision b y

t he d i str i c tc ourtw a s f a i r l y i nv ok e d

. . . . ” )

. L a c ki ng a ny f a ctual 14 de ve lop m en t i n th e re co rd , w e cannot co nc lud e tha t this al le ge d e rr or is fundam en ta l. 15 See Ru le 12- 216( B) (2 ) (s ta tin g that the pr es er va tio n r equir em en t do es not pr ec lud e 16 the a ppe llate c ourt f

ro m c onsi de ri ng que sti ons inv olv ing “ fundam en ta l e rr or or 17 fundam ental rights of a party ”). 18 { 42} Ins t ead, we will construe D efendant’ s argum ent as a challenge to the district22

1 co urt’ s de nia l of

am oti on f

or m ist ria l tha t D ef

en da nt a ct

ua lly did m ak e at tr ia l. 2 Of fi ce r He rn andez w as about to testi fy to what D efendant told him in the hosp ital 3 tr eatm en t ro om w he n D ef en da nt obj ec te d on gr ound s of th e p hy sic ian- pa tie nt 4 pr ivi le ge . T he j ur

y w as as ke d to le av e the ro om . D ur ing the ar gum en ts ov er the 5 objec tion o utsid e the presence of t h e jury , the prosecutor stated to the court that 6 D et ec tiv e O rt iz w oul d lat er te sti fy that D ef en da nt t old

he r his inj ur

y w as c au se d by 7 a T onka T ru ck

. T he re co rd doe s re fl ec t tha t O ff ic er H er na nde z re m ai ned i n t he 8 co urtr oom

dur ing the se a rg um en ts. 9 { 43} Fo llowing O ffice r He rnandez’ s testim ony at trial, De fendant m oved f or a 10 m istri al , c la im ing that R ule 11- 615 w as vio la te d w he n th e pr ose cu tor state d, i n th e 11 pr es en ce of

O ff ic er H er na nde z, that D et e ct ive O rt iz w oul d late r te sti fy that D ef en dant 12 tol d he r his inj ur y was cau se d by aT onka T ru ck

. D ef

en da nt arg ue d th at

thi s 13 co nst itu te d th e pros ecu to r an d th e co urt “ vouc hin g” f or the ve ra ci ty

of D et ec tiv e 14 Ortiz’ s expected testim ony . T he district court con cluded that havin g Off icer 15 H er nande z pr es en t i n th e co urtr oom dur ing a rg um en t in which fu tur e te sti m ony of 16 De tective Or

tiz wa s discuss ed wa s a violation of Rule 11-615 but that no prejudice 17 resulted from

this error because O ffice r H ernandez had alr eady stated in his p retrial 18 int er vie wthat D ef

en da nt tol d him the inj ur ie s w er e ca use d by the T onka

tr uc k. T he23

1 co urt a lso c onc lud ed

that i t ha d no t er

re d in pe rm itt ing D et ec tiv e O rt iz to re m ai n in 2 the courtroom

through out trial as it had decided in its pre trial ruling because case law 3 an d R ule 11- 615 sta te s th at re pr es en ta tiv es of a pa rty , inc lud ing pol ic e of fi ce rs w ho 4 se rv e as w itn es se s, m ay r em ai n pr es en t i n th e co urtr oom thr oughou t the tr ia l. T he 5 court allowed D efendant to cross-exam ine Dete ctive Or tiz about the fact that she has 6 be enpr es en t thr ough out the te sti m ony

of e ve ry oth er w itn es s. 7 { 44} T his Co urt r ev ie w s atr ia l c ourt’ s a ppl ic ationof

Ru le 11- 615 fo r ab use of 8 di sc ret io n. He rnan dez , 1993 -N MS C- 007, ¶ 36. A s bo th p ar

tie s a gr ee , w e re vie wthe 9 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of D ef en da nt’ s m oti on fo r m istri al m ad e on g ro unds of Ru le 11- 10 61 5 fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. See Sta te v . Saa ve dra , 1988-NMS C-100, ¶ 9, 108 N. M. 11 38, 766 P

. 2d 2 98 ( sta tin g th at thi s C ourt’ s st an da rd

f or r evie win g a m oti on f

or 12 m istrial affor ds the trial court discretion that depends on the “ underly in g i s s ue”); 13 Sta te v . Co ntr eras , 200 7- N MC A -0 45, ¶¶ 24 , 2 7, 141 N

. M. 434 , 156 P

. 3d 7 25 14 (r ev ie w ing atr ia l c ourt’ s de nia l of the de fe ndant’ s m oti on fo r m is tri al f or abuse of 15 dis cr et ionw he re the und er ly ing iss ue w as e vid en tiary ); State v. Kijowski , 16 1973 -N MCA -129, ¶ 5, 85 N. M. 549, 514 P. 2d 30 6 (“ [P] erm itting a witness to testify 17 w ho h as vio la te d th e co ur t’ s in str uc tio n no t t o di sc uss the c as e w ithoth er than th e 18 attorney s is within the trial court’ s discretion.”).24

1 { 45} W e concl ude that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing 2 De fe n d an t ’s m o t i o n fo r m i s t ri al . Th e p ro s ec u t o r’s s t at emen tab o u tDe t ec t i v e O rt i z’s 3 f u tu r e t e s t i mo n y d i dn o ta n dc o u l dn o t h a v e c h a n g e d O f f i c e r He rn a n d e z ’s t e s t i mo n y. 4 O ff ic er H er na nde z ha d a lr ea dy

state d in a pr etri al int er

vie w tha t D ef

en da nt s ai d hi s 5 i n ju ri es we re c aused by

the Tonka truck. The j ury did no t hear the prosecuto r’s 6 sta te m en t. Whe re the re is “ no da nge r” tha t a w itn es s c oul d c onf orm te sti m ony

to the 7 te sti m ony

of an oth er w itn es s, a tr ia l c ourt do es not abuse it s di sc re tio n ina llo w ing a 8 wit ne ss to tes ti fy

aft er Ru l e 11 -6 15 ha d b een in vo ke d. O rti z , 1975-NMC A- 112, ¶¶ 9 3 3 -3 4 . No r c an i tb e s ai dt h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt “v o u c h e d fo r” fo r D et ec t i v e O rt i z’s 10 te sti m ony . T he Co de of Jud ic ia l C ondu ct pr ohi bit s a j udge fr om “ vouc h[ ing ] ” fo r the 11 ch ar ac te r of

ape rs on i n ale ga l pr oc ee din g un le ss tha t pe rs on i s duly ca lle d a s a 12 w itn es s. Ru le 21- 303 N MR A

. Bu t he re al l the co urt did w as to ac ce pt a pr of fe r fr om 13 the p ro s ec utor outs ide the presence of the j ury regar ding what te stim ony wa s 14 ex pe ct ed

. 15 { 46} D ef

en da nt a lso a rg ue d inhis r ep ly br ie f fo r the f

ir st t im e on a

ppe al that the 16 dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in al low ing D et ec tiv e O rt iz to re m ai n in th e co urtr oom be ca use 17 Dete ct iv e Ort iz “ di sc us se d t he cas e wit h w i t n e s s e s an d l awy ers forth e St at e,” 18 pr ej udi ci ng D ef

en da nt’ s ca se . Whe the r D et ec tiv e O rt iz dis cu sse d he r te sti m ony w ith25

1 oth er w itn es se s and the S ta te ’ s law y er s do es not appe ar in the re co rd , an d the iss ue 2 w a s n o t p r es erv ed

. See Rule 12-216(A). To the c ontrary , at trial, De fense counsel 3 cl ari fie d t ha t “ th ere’s n o s ug ge st io n t ha t D e t e c t i v e O r ti z h as sp ok en wit h a ny . . . 4 w itn es se s. ” T he r ec or d do es not r ef le ct that D ef en da nt m ove d f

or m istri al in the 5 dis tr ic t c ourt on an y gr ound s oth er than the fa ct tha t O ff ic er H er na nde z w as pr es en t 6 w he n th e pr ose cu tor tol d the co urt w ha t it ex pe ct ed D et ec tiv e O rt iz to te sti fy about

. 7 W e the re fo re f

ind no m er it in D ef

en da nt’ s arg um en t. 8 E. De fend ant’s C onvictions Ar e Su pporte d by Su bstantial Eviden ce 9 { 47} D ef

en da nt m ak es age ne ra liz ed c la im that this Co urt s houl d r ev er se his 10 co nvi ct ion s f

or ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce . A lth ough he m ak es no r ef er en ce s to the 11 ev ide nti ar

y r ec or d and no foc use d ar gum en t a s to howthe e vid en ce w as ins uf fi ci en t 12 to e sta

bli sh any of the se ve ra l of

fe nse s of c onvi ct ion , we have ind ep en de ntl y 13 review ed the rec ord and conclud ed that suffici en t evidence suppo rted eac h 14 co nvi ct ion

. 15 { 48} Sufficie ncy

of th e evidence is re viewed on appeal by a substantial evid ence 16 st an da rd

. Sta te v . T

re adw ay , 2 0 0 6

- N M S C

- 0 0 8 , ¶ 7 , 1 3 9 N

. M

. 1 6 7 , 1 3 0 P. 3d 7 46. 17 E vid en ce is subs tanti al w he n it is “ re le va nt ev ide nc e tha t a re as ona ble m in d m igh t 18 acce pt a s adequate to supp ort a conclusion.” Sta te v . R ojo , 199 9- N MS C- 001, ¶ 19,26

1 126 N

. M. 438 , 971 P

. 2d 8 29. “ ‘ [T ] he r el ev an t qu es tio n is w he the r, a ft er vie w ing the 2 ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p ro se cu ti on , anyr at ion al tr ie r of f ac t c oul d 3 have found th e essential elem ents of the crim e bey ond a reasonable doub t.’ ” State v. 4 G arc ia , 199 2- N MS C- 048, ¶ 26, 114 N

. M. 269 , 274 , 837 P

. 2d 8 62 ( al te ratio n in 5 or igi na l) ( quot ing Ja ck son v. V irg ini a , 443 U. S. 307 , 319 ( 1979 ))

. “ T he que sti on 6 be fo re us a s ar ev ie w ing Co urt i s no t w he the r w e w oul d ha ve ha d a re as ona ble doubt 7 but w he the r it w oul d have be enim pe rm iss ibl y

unr ea sona

ble f or aj ur y to ha ve 8 concluded ot herw ise.” Sta te v . R udol fo , 2008 -N MS C- 036, ¶ 29, 144 N

. M. 305 , 187 9 P. 3d 1 70. W e m

ust vie wthe e vid en ce in th e “ lig ht m ost f av or ab le to the gui lty 10 verdict, indulging all rea sonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence 11 in favor of the verdict. ” State v. Chavez , 200 9- N MS C- 035, ¶ 11, 146 N

. M. 434 , 211 12 P. 3d 89 1 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). 13 { 49} For ea ch of the crim es discussed b elow, the State w as required to s how that 14 D ef en dant c om

m itt ed the se a ct s onor

abou t Nov em

be r 7, 201 0, in N ewMe xic o. 15 Ther e is s ub st a nt i a l e vi de nc e t o su pp or tt hi s e l e m e nt

o f e a c h c r i m e w he r e s e ve r al 16 witnesses testified t h at the events occurred on that evening in Albuquerque, N ew 17 Me xic o. 18 1. Su bs ta nt ial Ev id en ce S up po rt s D ef en da nt ’s F el on y- M ur de r C on vic ti on27

1 { 50} For the j ury

to find Defe ndant guilt y of first-degree felon y m urder in this case, 2 the S ta te ha d to pr ove the f oll ow ing be y ond a re as ona ble doubt: 3 1. T he de fe ndant c om m itt ed the c ri m e of K idn ap pin g and/ or A tte m pt t o 4 Co m

m it A rm ed Ro bbe ry unde r ci rc um stanc es or in a m an ne r da nge ro us 5 to hum an life; 6 2. T he de fe ndant c au se d th e de ath of D w ay ne K ing dur ing the 7 c o mm i s s i o n o f

Ki d n ap p i n g a n d/ o r A t t e mp t t o C o mm i t A rmed R o b b e ry; 8 [and] 9 3. T he de fe ndant int en de d to kil l or kne wthat hi s a ct s c re at ed astr ong 1 0 p r o b ab i l i t y o f

d e a t h o r g r e a tb o d i l y h a rm. 11 See U JI 14- 202 N MR A ; N MS A 197 8, § 30 -2 -1 (A )( 2) ( 1994 ) (“ Mur de r in the f ir st 12 de gr ee is the kil lin g of one hum anbe ing by

a nothe r w ith out

law fu l j ust if

ic at ion or 13 ex cu se , by

a ny of the m eans w ithw hic h de ath m ay be c au se d .

. . in the c om m iss ion 14 of or attem

pt to comm it any

felony .” ). 15 { 51} Fo r the j ur

y to fi nd D ef

en da nt g uil ty

of a tte m pt t o c om m it ar m ed r obbe ry , the 16 St at e ha d to pr ove the f oll ow ing be y ond a re as ona ble doubt: 17 1. T he de fe ndant int en de d to co m m it the cr im e of A rm ed Ro bbe ry ; [ an d] 18 2. T he defendant began to do an act which constitu ted a substanti al part 1 9 o f

t h e Ar med R o b b e ry b u tf a i l e dt o c o mm i tt h e Ar med R o b b e ry. 20 See UJI 14-280 1 N MR A ; N MS A 197 8, § 30 -2 8- 1 ( 1963 ) (“ A tte m pt t o c om m it a 21 fe lon y

c onsi sts of

a n ov er t a ct in furthe ranc e o f an d w ithint en t t o c om m it a fe lon y 22 an d te ndi ng b ut fa ili ng to ef fe ct its co m

m iss ion

. ”)

. T he f

oll ow ing a re the e le m en ts o f 2 3 a rmed r o b b e ry:28

1 1. T he de fe ndant t ook an d carr ie d aw ay pr ope rty or m one y f ro m 2 D w ay

ne K ing , or

f ro m D w ay ne K ing ’ s im

m ed ia te c ontro l i nte ndi ng t o 3 pe rm an en tly

de pr ive D w ay

ne K ing of

the pr ope rty

or m on ey ; the 4 property

had som e value; 5 2. T he de fe ndant w as a rm ed w ithahandgun; [ an d] 6 3. T he de fe ndant t ook the pr ope rty or m oney

by f or ce or vio le nc e or 7 threatened forc e or violence. 8 See U JI 14- 1621 N MR A ; N MS A 197 8, § 30 -1 6- 2 ( 1973 ) (“ Ro bbe ry c onsi sts of

the 9 the ft of a nythi ng o f va lue f

ro m the pe rs on o f an oth er

or fr om the im m ed ia te c ontro l 10 of another, by

use or threatened use of f orce or violence. ”). 11 { 52} W itha ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s in favor of the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t, ar at ion al tr ie r of 12 fa ct could have foun d Def endant gui lty

of first-degre e fe lonym urder. Sever al 13 w itn es se s te sti fi ed tha t De fe ndant viol en tly shov ed D w ay ne ag ai nst the w al l and tol d 14 him , “ G ive i t to m e. I ne ed it a ll. ” an d th re at en ed

him w ithahandgun. T hose 15 witnesses present in the apartm ent thou ght th ey we re being robbed. Mr. Morales 16 dr ove a w ay

w ithD ef en da nt b ef

or e D ef en da nt h ad

obt ai ne d whate ve r he w as tr y ing 17 to t ak e fr om

D w ay ne . V ie w ing the ev ide nc e in the lig ht m ost favor ab le to the ve rd ic t, 18 subs tantial evidence supp orts the requirem ents for the predicate felony of attem pted 1 9 a rmed r o b b e ry. 20 { 53} A ra t i o n al t ri er o f f ac tal s o co u l dh av e f

o u n dt h at De fe n d an tca u s ed Dwa yne ’s 21 death during the c om

m i ss i on o f the attem pted arm ed robbery . E vidence was pre sented29

1 that Dw ay

ne’ s cause o f death wa s a g unsh ot wound. The j ury also heard evid ence that 2 De fendant had a gun throu ghou t the incident and d ischarged it se veral tim es at 3 D w ay ne a nd o the rs . T he pho tog ra phs of D ef en da nt’ s in

j ur ie s a t the tim e of his a rr es t 4 w er e adm itt ed int o ev ide nc e. T he se phot os showthat D ef en da nt h ad

aw ound on the 5 we bbin g between his thum b and foref

inger. A qualified e xpert testified that such an 6 inj ur y c anbe the r es ult

of fi ri ng a hand gun w hil e hold ing it im pr ope rl y . A r ea sona

ble 7 j ur y c oul d have f

ound that D efend an t kn ewthat ho ldi ng a gunto D w ay

ne ’ s ne ck , 8 shoo ting at the ceiling o f the ground-floor apartm ent, and firing a gun in the presence 9 a n d d i r e c t i o n o f o t h e r s w o u l d c r e a t e a s t r o n g p o s s i b i l i t y o f d e a t h o r g r e a tb o d i l y h a rm. 10 Substantial evid ence supports th e re quirem ents of first-degree felony m urder. 11 2. Subst antial Evidence Sup ports D efen dant’ s Child -A buse C onvictions 12 { 54} Fo r the j ur

y to fi nd D ef

en da nt g uil ty o f ch il d abuse a s to e ith er A nto nio or 13 Ram on L ope z in this c as e, the S ta te ha d to pr ove the f oll ow ing be y ond a r ea sona ble 14 doub t: 15 1. T he defendant caused [either Antonio or Ram on Lopez] to be placed 16 in a

sit ua tio n w hic h e ndange re d th e lif e or he al th o f [A nto nio or

Ram on 1 7 Lo p ez ]; 18 2. T he de fe ndant a ct ed w ithr ec kle ss d isr eg ar d an d w ith out j ust if ic at ion

. 19 T o f

ind that the de fe ndant a ct ed w ith re ck le ss disr eg ar d, y ou m ust f ind 20 that the defendant knew or shou ld have known the defendant’ s conduct 21 created a su bstantial and foresee able risk , the defendant disregarded that 22 ri sk and the de fe ndant w as w hol ly ind if fe re nt t o th e co nse que nc es of the30

1 co nduc t and t o th e w el fare a nd s af ety of [ ei the r A nto nio or

Ram on 2 L ope z] ; [ an d] 3 3. [ A nto nio or

Ram on L ope z] w as und er the a ge of

18. 4 See N MS A 197 8, § 30 -6 -1 (D )( 1) ( 2009 ) (“ Abuse of ac hil d c onsi sts of

ape rs on 5 know ing ly , int en tio na lly or ne gli ge ntl y , a nd w ith out j ust if ia ble c au se , c au sin g or 6 pe rm itt ing ac hil d to be

. . . pla ce d inasit ua tio n th at

m ay e ndange r the c hil d’ s li fe or 7 health.”)

. 8 { 55} Making all reasonable inference s in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict, a rational trier 9 of f ac t c oul d have f

ound D ef en da nt g uil ty

of c hil d a buse a s to both A nto nio a nd 10 Ram on where evidence wa s presented showing that De fendant discharged a fire arm 1 1 m ult ip l e t i m e s i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f A n t o n i o a n d R a m o n , w h o w e r e u n d e r t h e a ge of 12 ei ght ee n a t the ti m e. S ev er al w itn es se s te sti fi ed that Defen da nt w ie lde d and f ir ed a 13 gun in the pr es en ce of both A nto nio a nd R am on i n and at th eir hom e an d inthe 14 direction of Antonio. A rational j ury could find th at, in sho oting a gun in the presence 15 of A nto nio a nd R am on and i n the dir ec tio n of A nto nio , D ef en da nt k ne wthe r isk

of 16 his c ondu ct

a nd w as w hol ly

ind if fe re nt to tha t r isk

. S ubst an tia l e vid en ce sup ports the 17 re qui re m en ts o f ch ild abuse a s to both A nto nio a nd R am on. 18 3. Su bs ta nt ial Ev id en ce S up po rt s D ef en da nt ’s C on vic ti on f

or S ho ot in g f

ro m 19 a M ot or V eh ic le 20 { 56} Fo r the j ur

y to fi nd D ef

en da nt guil ty of shoo tin g fr om am oto r ve hic le in thi s31

1 ca se , the S ta te ha d to pr ove the f oll ow ing be y ond a re as ona ble doubt: 2 1. T he de fe ndant w ill fu lly shot af ir earm f ro m am oto r ve hic le w ith 3 re ck le ss d isr eg ar d f or a nothe r pe rs on; [ an d] 4 2. T he de fe ndant w as not a lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r en ga ge d inthe 5 l a w f

u l p e r f o rman c e o f

h i s du t y. 6 See U J I 1 4

- 3 4 2 N M R A ; N M S A 1 9 7 8 , 3 0

- 3

- 8 ( B ) ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( “S h o o t i n g a to r f r o m a 7 m oto r ve hic le c onsi sts of w ill fu lly dis ch ar gin g af

ir earm a t or fr om a m oto r ve hic le 8 with rec kless dis regard f or the person of another.”)

. 9 { 57} Making all reasonable inference s in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict, a rational trier 10 of fac t could have found De fendant guilt y of s hoot ing from a m otor vehicle. Se veral 11 witn esses testified that they saw De fendant in the passeng er sea t of De fendan t ’s 12 ve hic le , an d as the ve hic le pul le d aw ay the se w itn es se s he ar d se ve ra l sh ots f ir ed a nd 13 sawf la she s o f lig ht f

ro m the pa sse nge r w ind ow . T ha t D ef en da nt a ct ed

w ill fu lly is 14 supp orted by

the testim ony showing that several shots wer e fire d from the passenger 15 side of the car and that Def endant was in possession of the fire arm that he discharged 16 dur ing w ha t the w itn es se s de sc ri be d as an ar m ed ro bbe ry m om en ts b ef or e he got int o 17 the passenger side of the vehicle. T he j ury also heard evidence that D ef endant was 18 not a law e nforcem ent officer engaged in lawful perf

orm ance of his d u t y i n that 19 De fendant adm itted he we n t t o the apartm ent to purchase m arij uana. S ubstant ial 20 evidence suppo rts the requirem ents of shoo ting from a m otor vehicle.32

1 4. Su bs ta nt ial Ev id en ce S up po rt s D ef en da nt ’s C on vic ti on f

or S ho ot in g at an 2 Occu pied D w elling 3 { 58} Fo r the j ur

y to fi nd D ef

en da nt g uil ty

of shoo tin g at an oc cu

pie d dw el lin g in this 4 ca se , the S ta te ha d to pr ove the f oll ow ing be y ond a re as ona ble doubt: 5 1. T he defendant willfully shot a firear m at a dw elling and/ or occupied 6 bui ldi ng; 7 2. T he de fe ndant kne w tha t the bui ldi ng w as adw el lin g and/ or oc cu pie d; 8 [and] 9 3. T he de fe ndant w as not alawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r en ga ge d inthe 1 0 l a w f

u l p e r f o rman c e o f

h i s du t y. 11 See U JI 14- 340 N MR A ; § 30- 3- 8( A ) (“ Sh oot ing a t a dw el lin g or

oc cu pie d bu ild ing 12 consist s of willfully

discharging a firear

m at a dw elling or occupied b uildi ng.”). 13 { 59} Making all reasonable inference s in favor of the jury ’ s verdict, a rational trier 14 of f ac t c oul d have f

ound D ef en da nt g ui lt y of shoo tin g a t an oc cu pie d dw el lin g. 15 W itn es se s te sti fi ed

th at Defen da nt d isc ha rg ed af ir earm int o th e ce ili ng o f the 16 ap ar tm en t. W itn es se s te sti fi ed tha t De fe ndant fi re d in the dir ec tio n of the apa rtm en t 17 of Mr

. S ta llw orth, w ho h ad to ta ke c ove r be hin d aw al l of his bui ldi ng, a nd tha t the 18 bul le t’ s im

pa ct dis lod ge d dust fr om the w al l. W itn es se s als o te sti fi ed that D ef en dant 19 fi re d hi s w ea

pon at A nto nio w hil e out sid e the apa rtm en t and tha t the bul le t fr om thi s 20 shot im

pacted the wa ll of a separate unit in th e com plex. E vidence was pre sented that 21 De fendant k n ew t h at these apartm ents he was f iring at wer e dwe lling s or we re33

1 oc cu pie d be ca use D e f e n d ant w as f

am ili ar w iththe pr em ise s and a dm itt ed that he w en t 2 t o an apartm ent to purchase m arij uana. T his adm issio n also gave the jury evidence 3 that Def

endant was not a lawenforce m ent officer engaged in the lawful perf orm ance 4 of his dut y . S ubstant ial evidence suppo rts the requirem ents of shoo ting at an occupied 5 dw el lin g. 6 5. Subst a nt ial Evidence Supp orts De fend ant’s Tam perin g-w ith-E vidence 7 C on vic ti on 8 { 60} Fo r the j ur

y to fi nd D ef

en dant g ui lt y of ta m

pe ri ng w iththe e vid en ce in thi s 9 ca se , the S ta te ha d to pr ove the f oll ow ing be y ond a re as ona ble doubt: 10 1. T he de fe ndant p la ce d and/ or hid ahandgun; [ an d] 11 2. By

doi ng s o, the de fend ant i nte nde d to pr ev en t the appr eh en sio n, 12 prosecution or conviction of him self. 13 See U JI 14- 2241 N MR A ; N MS A 197 8, § 30 -2 2- 5(A ) (2 003) ( “ T am pe ri ng w ith 14 evidence consists of destroy ing, changing, hidin g, placing or fabr icating any phy sical 15 ev ide nc e w ithint en t t o pr ev en t th e app re he nsi on, pr ose cu tio n or c onvi ct ionof

a ny 16 person or to throw suspi cion of the com m issio n of a cr im e upon anot her. ”). 17 { 61} T he re w as am

ple te sti m ony in the r ec or d th at w itn es se s sawD ef

en da nt w itha 18 re vol ve r tha t he dis ch ar ge d a num be r of tim es at the hom ic ide sc en e. A nd t es tim ony 19 cl earl y

e sta bli she d th at

the pol ic e were ne ve r ab le to fi nd the r ev olv er . T he 20 co m bin at ionof tho se fa ct s al one is ins uf fi ci en t to co nst itu te sub stanti al e vid en ce of34

1 ta m pe ri ng unde r N ewMe xico lawbe ca use it pr ove s on ly

that “ ev ide nc e tha t m

ust 2 have once existed cannot no w be found.” Sta te v . G ue rra , 201 2- N MS C- 027, ¶ 16, 3 284 P. 3d 1 076. “ T am pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce is a spe ci fic int en t c ri m e, r equir ing 4 sufficient evidence fr om which the j ury

can infer that the defendant acted w ith an 5 int en t to pre ve nt app re he nsi on, pr ose cu tio n or c onvi ct ionof

a ny pe rs on o r to thr ow 6 susp icion of the comm issio n of a cr im e u pon ano ther.” State v. Silva , 7 2008 -N MS C- 051, ¶

18, 144 N

. M. 815, 192 P. 3d 1192 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and 8 citation om itted). 9 { 62} Bu t w e ha ve e m pha siz ed that di re ct

e vid en ce i s of

te n un av ai la

ble to pr ove 10 ta m pe ri ng w ith ev ide nc e and tha t “ ci rc um stanti al ev ide nc e tha t wo uld te nd to pr ove 11 a defe ndant acted to tam per w ith evidence and in so acting intended to thwart a police 12 inv es tig at ion” m ay

supp or t a t am

pe rin g c on vi ct io n. Sta te v . D uran , 200 6- N MS C- 035, 13 ¶ 16, 140 N

. M. 94, 140 P

. 3d 5 15. 14 { 63} Our r eview of

the rec ord refle cts that the facts and circum stances in this case— 15 wher e j ury

conviction s and sentencing fo r fi ve violent crim es includin g m urder 16 es ta bli she d D ef

en da nt’ s us e of the r ev olv er a t the c ri m e sc en e shor

tly be fo re his 17 ca pture —pr ovi de d su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce f

ro m w hic h a j ur

y c oul d r ea sona

bly c onc lud e 18 that Def

end an t dispo sed of the m urder w eapon with the intent to th wart the police35

1 investig ation. A fter shooting Dway ne, D efendant fled t h e s cene with the revolver, 2 firing it out th e windo w of the car a s he escaped. W ithin m inutes, the police wer e at 3 his ho m e w here they

caught him

t ryi n g to escape again, out the back door. I n that 4 short tim e, with little likelihoo d of or tim e for a stop en route for any

other purpose, 5 D ef en dant h ad

got te n r id of the re vol ve r. N ot only w as it not fo und at the sc en e, but 6 it w as not fo und on his per son or an yw he re in his hom e, w he re pol ic e loc at ed agun 7 cl eanin g ki t. I n a ddi tio n to his tw o e sc ap e atte m pts , D ef en da nt g av e tw o ve ri fi ab ly 8 fa lse sto ri es , the unsu

ppor te d stor y of w ha t had happe ne d at the m ur de r sc en e and

the 9 unsu ppor te d st or y of r ec ei vin g hi s ph y sic al inj ur ie s f rom an en co unt er

w ithatoy 10 truck instead of from

gun-related crim inal encounters at t he hom icide scene testified 11 to b y oth er w itn es se s. T ak entog ethe r, th es e pie ce s of c ir cu m stanti al e vid en ce pr ovi de 12 suf fi ci en t su ppor t for the j ur

y ’ s c onc lus ionthat i n th e co ur se of his qui ck f lig ht f ro m 13 the hom icide scene to his hom e, De fendant dispo sed of the revolver h e had j ust us ed 14 in the sho oti ngs w iththe spe ci fi c pu rp os e of pr ev en tin g it s us e as e vid en ce a ga ins t 15 him

. A cc or din gly , w e af fi rm his tam pe ri ng c onvi ct ion

. 16 F . C um ul at ive Er ro r 17 { 64} “ ‘ T he doc tr ine of c um ula tiv e er ro r re qui re s r ev er sa l o f

a d e f e n d an t ’ s c o n v i c tio n 18 when the cum

ulative im

pact of er rors w hich occurred at tria l wa s so prejudicial that36

1 the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.’ ” Sta te v. Sam ora , 201 3- N MS C- 038, ¶ 28, 2 30 7 P. 3d 32 8 (citation om itted). “ The doctrine of cum ulative error .

. . ‘ cannot [be] 3 inv oke [d ] if

the r ec or d a s aw hol e de m onstrates that [the de fe ndant] r ec ei ve d af ai r 4 trial.’ ” Id

. ( al te ratio ns in or ig ina l) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). “ [W ] he re the re is no e rr or to 5 accum ulate, ther e can be no cum ulative error. ” Sta te v . Sai z , 200 8- N MS C- 048, ¶

66, 6 144 N

. M. 663 , 191 P

. 3d 5 21, abr ogat ed on o the r gr ound

s by Stat e v. Be lang er , 7 2009 -N MS C- 025, ¶

36 n

. 1, 146 N

. M. 357, 210 P. 3d 783. T he re is no c um ula tiv e er ro r 8 in this c as e be ca

use D ef en da nt h as not

de m onstrate d any

tr ia l e rr or s. 9 III. CON CLU SION 10 { 65} Finding no reversible err or, w e affirm De fendant’ s convictio ns of first-degree 11 fe lon y m ur de r, tw o c ount s of

ne gli ge ntl y ca

use d ch ild ab use , shoo tin g fr om am oto r 12 vehicle, shooting at a dw elling or occupied b uildi ng, and tam pering with evidence. 13 { 66} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

14

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 15 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice 16 WE CO NCUR:

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___37

1 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Ch ief Justice

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 RIC HAR

D C . B OSSON , Just ice

6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 7 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice