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

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: June 28, 201 7 4 N O. 34, 260 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 ALREE SWE AT, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant.
10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF DO ÑAAN A C OUN TY 11 D ou gla s R . D ri gge rs , D ist ri ctJu dg e
12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 W alter H art, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 Allison H. Jaram illo, Assistant Appellate D efender 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

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

en d a n tA l r e e S w e a tap p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n s o f f o u r c o u n t s o f b u r g l a ry of 4 a vehicle, contrary to NMSA1978 , S ection 30-16 -3(B) (1971). D efendant’ s prim ary 5 a r g u men t s o n ap p e a l a r e t h a tt h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e rr e db y a d mi t t i n g ( 1 ) “ g r a i n y” 6 sur ve ill an ce v id eo foo ta ge , and (2) lay witn es s t es ti m on y id en ti fy in g Def

en da nt as the 7 pe rs on p ic tur ed

on the sur

ve ill an ce vid eo . D ef

en da nt a lso a rg ue s th at

suf fi ci en t 8 ev ide nc e doe s no t su ppor t hi s c onvi ct io ns an d th at he w as de pr ive d of

his 9 co nst itu tio na l r igh t t o aspe edy tr ia l. 10 { 2} For the re asons di scussed herein, w e first h o ld that the surveill ance video 11 fo ota ge w as re le vant and n ot unf ai rl y pr ej udi ci al to D ef

en da nt, m ak ing it

a dm iss ibl e 12 at tr ia l. W e ad dit ion al ly

hol d tha t the adm iss ion of lay w itn es s te sti m ony

ide nti fy ing 13 D ef en dant a s th e pe rs on p ic tur ed on the sur

ve ill an ce vid eo w as not

e rr or und er the 14 ci rc um stanc es of

thi s c as e an d th at

D ef en da nt’ s su ff

ic ie nc y of th e evi de nc e an d 15 sp eed y

tri al arg um en ts lac k m eri t. We th eref or e aff irm. 16 BACKGRO UND 17 { 3} On the m orning o f M ay 5 , 2 013, La s Cruces P olice De partm ent (L CPD ) O ffice r 18 Sean T erry

wa s disp atched to investi gate a r eported au t o b u rg l ary at the Super 8 19 Mot el

. H e w as , how ev er , r er out ed by dis pa tc h to the Me sil laV al le y H ospi ta l be ca

use2

1 the c om

pla inant h ad

le ft the m ot el to go to w ork. H e obse rv ed that the w ind owof 2 T he re saG raha m ’ s w hit e Bu ic k L eS ab re ( the L eS ab re ) was pr ie d op ena nd b ro ke n. 3 Gr aham

reported that additional evid ence w as located at the Super 8 Motel. Of ficer 4 T er ry pr oc ee de d to the Su

pe r 8 Mot el , w he re he dis co ve re d a blu e T oy ota S ie nna( the 5 Si en na ) w ithsim ilar da m ag e. O ff ic er T er ry pho tog ra

phed the da m ag e to b oth 6 v ehicles. H e also viewe d surveillance video foot age w ith the m anager of the m otel 7 an d re que ste d a copy of the sur ve ill an ce vid eo f

oot ag e fr om

the r el ev an t t im e pe ri od 8 (the surveillance video). 9 { 4} O n M ay

6, 201 3, L C P D D e t e c t i ve Mi ch ae l R ic ka rd s r ec ei ve d an e m ai l m es sa ge 10 tha t c ont ai ne d st ill im ag es ca pture d fr om the sur

ve ill an ce vid eo . D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds 11 re co gni ze d D ef

en dant a s th e pe rs on p ic tur ed

. D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds the n vi ew ed the 12 surveillance video and n oted that the person p ictured wa s driving a dark-c olored 13 pic kup tr

uc k. W iththi s in fo rm at ion , D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds b eg an an inv es tig at ionto 14 de te rm ine w he the r D ef en dant o w ne d or dr ove suc h ave hic le

. A s D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds 15 w as dr ivi ng to De fe ndant’ s la st k now n a ddr es s, he sawD ef en da nt s tandi ng o n th e 1 6 sid e of t h e r o a dn e x tt o ad i s ab l e d , d a rk

- c o l o r e dp i c kup t r u c k

. D e t e c t i v e R i c k a r ds 17 obt ai ne d the re gis tr at ioninf orm at iona nd d et er

m ine d th at

D ef en da nt o w ne d th e 18 vehicle.18 T he ne xt d ay , May 7, 201 3. 1 3 1 { 5} Given this inform ation, D etect i v e Rickards im plem ented a surveillance 2 ope ratio n targ et ing D ef en dant. O ff

ic er s st at ion ed

the m se lve s a t D ef

en da nt’ s ho use 3 an d ob se rv ed

that l oc at ionunt il ap pr oxi m at el y 1:0 0 a. m . , at w hic h ti m e D ef en dant 1 4 le ft his hou se in a w hit e Fo rd Mu stang ( the Mu stang)

. D ef en da nt dro ve thr oughthe 5 city , ultim ately

parking a t the Com fort Inn. Ne w Mexico State Police O ffice r D aniel 6 L az os w as a ssi sti ng w iththe ope ratio n an d posi tio ne d hi m se lf on the north s ide of

the 7 Co m fo rt

I nn. H e sa w D ef

en dant in the northw es t part of the pa rk ing lot bangi ng o n 8 the door fr am e of a car. O ff ic er L az os the n he ar d gl as s br eakin g, sawD ef en da nt m ove 9 to anoth er vehicle, and heard m ore glass breaking. At this tim e, LC PD Of ficer Gary 10 Pe de rs on dro ve int o th e park ing lot a nd p ar ke d hi s ve hic le in cl ose pr oxi m ity to 11 D ef en dant. O ff

ic er P ed er son ex it ed his ve hic le a nd c onf ro nte d D ef

en da nt, w ho 12 dr oppe d a bac kpa ck an d fle d on fo ot. D ef en da nt ran dire ct ly tow ar d O ff ic er L az os, 1 3 b u tar o c kwa l l s e p a r a t e dt h e t w o . De f e n d a n ts p o k e t o Of

f i c e r La z o s a s h e r a n b y. 14 Whil e runni ng aw ay fro m Offi ce r L az os, D ef en da nt p as se d di re ct ly

in fr ont of 15 D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds’ ve hic le

. D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds ide nti fi ed D ef en da nt an d y el le d ou t 16 fo r D ef

en dant t o st op r

unni ng. T he of

fi cers sear ch ed

the a re a but

did not f ind 17 D ef en dant.4

1 { 6} Crim e S cene Photo grapher and T echnician Anthony Martin photog raphed 2 da m ag e to tw o ve hic le s a t the Co m fo rt I nn: asil ve r T oy ota

P ri us ( the P ri us) a nd a 3 gr ey F or d F -2 50 ( the F -2 50)

. T he Mu stang r em ai ne d a t the Co m fo rt I nn. 4 { 7} A ft er

be ing ap pr eh en de d, D ef

en da nt pa rt ic ipa te d in a cu sto dia l i nte rv ie ww ith 5 D etective Ri ck ar ds, dur ing w hic h th ey dis cu sse d th e curr en t l oc at ionof pr ope rty 6 m iss ing fr om the ve hic le s at the Su pe r 8 Mot el

. D ef

en da nt de nie d havin g po sse ssi on 7 of the pr op e rt y a nd st a t e d t hat “ I do n’ t r e m e m be r w hat I go t [ f

r om t he Super 8 8 M o t el ]” a n dt h at “ Bo b b y d i ds o m et h i n g wi t h i t [. ]” 9 { 8} A t t r i a l , t h e S t a t e i n t r o du c e d t h e s u rv e i l l a n c e v i d e o t h r o u g h t h e t e s t i m ony of 10 Super 8 Motel m anager D ipesh Gandhi. G andhi testified that the surveillance video 11 show ed

a ct ivi ty in the S upe r 8 M ote l park ing lot , i nc lu di ng the “ br eakin g of the 12 vehicles” at issue in the case. De fendant objec ted to the adm issio n of the surveillance 13 video, claim ing th at, because it w as “ black-and-white” and “ grainy ,” the prej udicial 14 ef fe ct outw ei ghe d th e pr oba tiv e va lue

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ov er ru le d th e obj ec tio n. 15 { 9} N um er ous law en fo rc em en t off ic er s tes tif

ie d abou t the ir

spe ci fi c inv olv em en t 16 in the inv es tig at ionor the sur ve ill an ce op eration t ar ge tin g D ef en da nt. D ur ing 1 7 D e t e c t i v e R i c k a r d s ’ t e s t i mo n y, t h e S t a t e p l a ye dt h e s u rv e i l l a n c e v i d e o f o r t h e ju ry, 18 inc lud ing se gm en ts tha t sh ow ed ( 1) adark -c olo re d pi ck

up tru ck pul lin g in to and 19 park ing in the S upe r 8 M ote l park ing lot ; ( 2) a pe rs on pee ri ng into the pa sse nge r sid e5

1 w ind owof

aw hit e ve hic le w ithaf

la shl igh t; an d ( 3) a pe rs on f or ci bly e nte ri ng the 2 L e S ab r e a n dt h e S i e n n a . A s t h e j u ry v i e w e dt h e s e c o n ds e g m e n t , t h e f o l l o w ing 3 exchange took p lace: 4 [ T h e S t a t e : ] I’ m go i n g to dr aw y oura tte nti on t o [t he 5 portio n of the sur ve ill an ce vid eo ] start ing 6 with 2:20 [a.m .]

. . . . C an y ou tell from that 7 an gle , or did y ou know w ho thi s [p er son 8 pic tur ed ] w as ? 9 [Det ect iv e Ri ck ard s: ] Not at t hi s p art ic ul ar m om en t, n o. 1 0 [ T h e S t a t e : ] O ka y . I s th is p art of the v ide o th at y ou 11 w at ch ed ? 12 [Det ect iv e Ri ck ard s: ] Yes , itis

. 1 3 [ T h e S t a t e : ] W he n di d y ou st art to re al iz e w ho y ou 14 tho ught it w as ? 15 [D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds: ] A s soon as he cam e fr om th e pa ss enge r sid e 16 w ind owto thi s po sit ion , I kne wim m ed ia te ly 1 7 i twa s [D ef en d an t ]. 18 D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds’ te sti m ony on this top ic c ont inu ed

a s f oll ow s: 1 9 [T h e S t at e: ] Do y o ukn o w [ De fe n d an t ]? 20 [D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds: ] I do. 21 [T he S ta te :] D oe s he kno wy ou? 22 [D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds: ] Y es , he doe s. 23 [T he State:] Does he know y ou bynam e?19 The dri ve r’s em pl oyer own edth e F-2 50

. 2 6 1 [D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds: ] Y es , sir , he doe s. 2 [ T h e S t a t e : ] A nd y o u kn e w h i m b e f or e thi s in ci de nt by 3 nam e? 4 [D et ec t i v e R i ck ar d s : ] Ye s , I d [i d ]. 5 [T he S ta te :] So the pe rs on y ou ide nti fi ed on th e video , to 6 y ou, how c ertain w ere y ou that th at w as 7 [D ef en d an t ]? 8 [D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds: ] I w as c er ta in. 9 [T he S ta te :] H owc er ta in? 10 [D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds: ] 100 pe rc en t. 11 D ef enda nt di d not

obj ec t t o e ith er

li ne of que sti oni ng. D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds a lso 12 te sti fi ed tha t D ef

en dant’ s ph y sic al appe ar an ce ha d c ha nge d su bst an tia lly

dur ing the 13 int e rve ni ng y e a r si nc e t he i nc i de nt , st a t i ng sp e c i f i c a l l y t hat D e f

e nd a nt “ w a s m

uch 14 th in ne r ba ckth en .” 15 { 10} T he ow ner of th e Si en na , Mi ch ae l H en de rs on, a nd the dr ive r of the F -2 50, 2 16 Sh er idan H an kin s, te sti fi ed that th ey di d not auth or iz e an y pe rs on t o e nte r the 17 ve hic le s. T he ow ne r of the L eS ab re , G raha m , a nd the ow ne r of the P ri us, Jay

W ar re n, 1 8 d i dn o tt e s t i f

y.7

1 { 11} D e f

e n d a n t m o v e d f

o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t o n t w o o f t h e b u r g l a ry o f ave hic le 2 charges at the c lose of the State’ s case, arguing that the State had failed to prove that 3 entries into the LeSa b re and the Prius wer e unauthorized. T he district court denied 4 thi s m oti on. D ef

en dant w as c onvi ct ed

on a ll fo ur

c ha rg es . T his appe al r es ult ed

. 5 AD MISS IBILITY O F T HE SU RV EILLA NC E V IDEO 6 { 12} De fendant asserts two ar gum ents related t o the a dmi ssibi lity

of the surveillance 7 vide o: ( 1) t hat t he qu a l i t y of t he surve i l l a nc e vi de o w a s so po or t hat i t lacked 8 probative value, and (2 ) t h at the com bined effect of the qualityof the surveillance 9 vid eo a nd D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds’ te sti m ony opi nin g tha t D ef

en da nt w as the pe rs on 10 pictured resulted in unfair p rej udice to Def endant. T hese argum ents raise evidentiary 11 is su es , whi ch we rev ie w fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. State v. Downey , 200 8- N MS C- 061, 12 ¶ 24, 145 N

. M. 232 , 195 P

. 3d 12 44. Adis tr ic t c ourt a buse s it s di sc re tio n if

“ the 13 ev ide nti ar

y ru lin g is c le ar ly

c ontrary to log ic a nd the f

ac ts and c ir cu m stanc es of the 14 case. ” Id

. (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 15 Pr obative Value of the Sur veillance V ideo 16 { 13} “ E vid en ce is re le vant i f

. . . it ha s any te ndenc y to m ak e a fa ct

m or e or le ss 17 pr oba ble than it

w oul d be w ith out

the e vid en ce [. ] ” Ru le 11- 401( A ) N MR A

. T o be 18 re le vant, apie ce of

e vid en ce ne ed

not be c onc lu siv e as to a de fe ndant’ s gu ilt , 19 pa r t i c u l arl y

when vi ewedin is ol at io n fr om ot he r ev id en ce. State v. F lores , 201 0-8

1 N MS C- 002, ¶

29, 147 N

. M. 542, 226 P. 3d 6 41. I nst ea d, it ne ed onl y ha ve pr oba tiv e 2 va lu e fro m

whi ch a fact at i ss ue m ay

be de te rm in ed

. See Black’ s Law D ictiona ry 1397 3 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “ probative” as “ [t] ending to prove or disp rove”). The fact 4 at issue in the present case is, of course, whether De fendant burglarized two vehicles 5 in t he park ing lot

of the S upe r 8 M ote l duri ng the e ar ly m or nin g ho ur s of

May 5, 6 2013

. 7 { 14} In S tate v. Gonzales , th is Co ur t d is cu ss edth e ev id en ti ary va lu e o f “ gr ai ny” 8 surveillance video footage in add ressing the defendant’ s sufficiency of the evidence 9 ar gum en t. 200 8- N MC A -1 46, ¶ 9, 145 N

. M. 110, 194 P

. 3d 7 25. W e he ld tha t the 10 ev ide nc e w as not

“ w orthl es s, ” be ca

use a fact-f

ind er c oul d di sc er

n pr oba tiv e 11 in fo rm at io n, i nc lu di ng “ bo dy ty pe [], cl ot hi ng , hai r st y le []” and ot he r fea tu res . Id

. 12 { 15} T he sur

ve ill an ce vid eo in the pr es en t ca se sho w ed that a dark -c olo re d pi ck

up 1 3 t r u c kp u l l e di n t o t h e p a rk i n g l o to f t h e S up e r

8 M o t e l a t a p p r o x i ma t e l y 2 : 1 6 a . m. 1 4 Ap p r o x i ma t e l y f

i v e mi n u t e s a f

t e r t h e d a rk

- c o l o r e dp i c k u p t r u c kp a rk e d , t h e s a me 15 cam er a an gle show ed

ape rs on ( 1) pe er ing int o th e pa sse nge r- sid e w ind owof aw hit e 16 ve hic le w ith a fl as hli ght , (2 ) w al kin g to the dark -c olo re d pi ck up tru ck , a nd ( 3) dr ivi ng 17 aw ay . It also sho we d the person’s f ace, bodyty

pe, c lothi ng, and gait. A noth er c am era 18 an gle r ec or de d duri ng the sa m e tim e pe ri od s ho wed a pers on ( 1) pe er ing int o th e 19 L eS ab re a nd the Si en na w ithaf la shl igh t, ( 2) f

or ci bly e nte ri ng those ve hic le s, a nd ( 3)9

1 re m ovi ng it em s f

ro m the S ie nna . T he ha t, shi rt , a nd s horts w or n by the pe rs on 2 pic tur ed

in ea chc am er a an gle appe ar ide nti ca l. 3 { 16} D ef

en dant ar gue s tha t adm iss ion of the sur ve ill an ce vid eo w as e rr or be ca use 4 its poo r qua lity ne ga te d its “ te nde nc y to m ak e the ide nti fi catio n of the pe rs on i n th e 5 vid eo m or e or le ss pr oba ble

. ” A lth oughide nti fi catio n m ay be the m ost

obv iou s us e 6 of the sur

ve ill an ce vid eo a s e vid en ce , D ef en da nt’ s arg um en t do es not a ddr es s a ll the 7 w ay s inw hic h th e surve ill an ce vid eo ha d pr oba tiv e va lue

. I n a ddi tio n to sho w ing the 8 pic tur ed

pe rs on’ s bo dy

ty pe an d gait

—i nf orm at ion fr om w hic h a per son fam ili ar w ith 9 the pe r so n pi c tured could m ake an identification—the surveillance vid eo also showed 10 the pic ture d pe rs on arr ivi ng and d ep ar tin g inadark -c olo re d pi ck up tru ck a nd 11 rem ovin g item s from the Sienna. Considering in fere nc es t o be draw n from other 12 a dmi tted evidence—includi ng Defe ndant’s ow nership of a dark-colored pickup truck 1 3 a n dD e f

e n d a n t ’s s t a t e me n t s t o D e t e c t i v e R i c k a r d s r e l a t e dt o t h e w h e r e ab o u t s o f i t e ms 14 re m ove d f

ro m the S ie nna

—the c ont en t of

the sur ve ill ance vi de o is pr oba tiv e to a 1 5 d et er m i n at i o n as t o wh et h erDe fe n d an twa s t h e p er s o n p i ct u re d . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 16 adm iss ion of the sur

ve ill an ce vid eo w as not , the re fo re , “ cl earl y c ontrary to log ic a nd 17 the facts and circ um stances of the case. ” Downey , 2008-NMS C-061, ¶ 24 (internal 18 quot ation m arks and citation om itted).10

1 Subst antial Risk

of U nfair P reju dice 2 { 17} Rule 11-403 NMRAprovides, in pertinent part, that “ [t] he [district] court m ay 3 e x c l u d e r e l e v a n te v i d e n c e i f i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s ub s t an t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e db y a 4 dange r of

. . . unf

ai r pr ej udi ce [. ] ” E vid en ce is unf ai rl y pr ej udi ci al if

it ha s “ anund

ue 5 te nde nc y

to sugg es t [a ] de ci sio n ona n im pr ope r ba sis , c om

m onl y , tho ugh not 6 necessarily , an em otion al one.” State v. Stanley , 2001-NMS C-037, ¶ 17, 131 N. M. 7 368, 37 P .3d 85 ( internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). Em otion al b as es 8 include tho se “ best characte rized as sensational or sho cking, provok ing anger, 9 inf la m ing pa ssi ons, or

a ro usi ng o ve rwhe lm ing ly sym pa the tic re ac tio ns, or

pr ovok ing 10 host ili ty

or r ev uls ion or puni tiv e im

pul se s, or ap pe al ing en tir el y to em oti on a ga ins t 11 reason.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 12 { 18} D ef

en dant argue s th at

the pr oba tiv e va lue of the sur ve ill an ce vid eo is 13 outw ei ghe d by

asub stanti al r isk

of un fai r pr ej udi ce be ca

use D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds’ 14 ide nti fi catio n of

D ef en dant a s the pe rs on pic tur ed “ w as the onl y ev ide nc e of ide nti ty 15 for the char g es re l at ed to the Super 8 Motel.” As discussed above, the evidence 16 ind ic at ed tha t D ef

en dant (1 ) ow ne d a da rk -c olo re d pic kup tr uc k sim ilar to th e one 1 7 p i c tu r e di n t h e s u rv e i l l a n c e v i d e o , a n d( 2 ) w a s p r e v i o u s l y i n p o s s e s s i o n o f i t e ms 18 rem oved from the Sienna. The surveillance video is n ot, theref ore, the only

evidence 19 rel at edto Defen da nt ’s in vo lv em en t i n t he in ci de nt .11

1 { 19} O the r than hi s a sse rt iona s to the na tur e of the ev ide nc e aga ins t him , D ef en dant 2 has not ar

ticulated the m anner in which the com bined ef fect of the surveillance video 3 an d D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds’ te sti m ony ha d “ anund

ue te nde nc y to sugg es t [a ] de ci sio n on 4 an im proper basis[.] ” Id

. ¶ 17 ( int er na l qu otation m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ); see 5 State v. P itner , 201 6- N MC A -1 02, ¶ 13, 385 P. 3d 665 (d ec lin ing to re vie wunc le ar or 6 un d e v e l o p e d a r g u m e n t s )

. “ T h e p u r p o s e o f R u l e 1 1

- 4 0 3 i s n o t t o g u a r d a g a i nsta ny 7 prej udice whatsoever, but only against the dang er of unf air prej udice.” Sta te v . O tto , 8 2007-N MS C- 012, ¶

16, 141 N

. M. 443 , 157 P

. 3d 8 ( al te ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n 9 m ar k s , a n dc i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. B e c au s e w e d i s c e rn n o s ub s t a n t i a l r i s ko f unf ai r 10 pr ej udi ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a dm iss ionof the sur ve ill an ce video w as not

“ cl earl y 11 contrary

to logic and th e fa cts and circum stances of the case. ” Downey , 2008-NMS C12 061, ¶ 24 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 13 LAY WITNE SS ID ENT IFI C A T IO N O F A D E F E N D A N T ON 14 SU RV EILLA NC E V IDEO 15 { 20} D ef

en dant n ex t arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a dm iss ionof te stim on yby 16 D et ec tiv e Ri ck ard s inw hic h he ide nti fi ed D ef en da nt a s th e pe rs on p ic tur ed in the 17 sur ve ill an ce vid eo w as r ev ers ible er ro r. D ef en da nt d id n ot o bj ec t t o D et ec tiv e 18 Rickards’ testim ony

at trial. W e theref

ore re view for plain e rror. Plain err or review 19 ap pli es to ev ide nti ar

y iss ue s no t pr es er

ve d a t tri al

. Ru le 11- 103( E ) N MR A

. I t on ly 20 ap pli es , how ev er , if the al le ge dly er ro ne ous te sti m ony “ af

fe ct ed the sub stanti al r igh ts12

1 of the a cc use d” a nd “ co nst itu te d an in j ust ic e tha t c re at ed

gr av e doub ts co nc er

nin g th e 2 validityof the verdict. ” Sta te v . Co ntr eras , 199 5- N MS C- 056, ¶ 23, 120 N

. M. 486 , 3 90 3 P .2d 22 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 4 { 21} Photog raphic e v i d ence, includin g surveillance videos , is adm issib le at trial 5 un de r th e “ si le nt wit ne ss ” th eo ry . St at e v. Imp er ial , 201 7- N MC A -0 40, ¶ ¶ 29, 31, 6

__ _ P .3d __ _, ce rt. de nie d (N o. 36, 300, Mar. 9, 2017 ). T he the or et ic al und er pin nin g 7 of the “ sil en t w itn es s” the or y is th at th e phot ogr ap h “ spe ak s f or it se lf [] a nd i s 8 subs tantive evidence of what it portray s[.] ” Sta te v . H en de rso n , 1983 -NMCA- 094, 9 ¶ 8, 100 N.M. 260, 669 P.2 d 736. De fendant claim s that—because the surveillance 10 vid eo spe ak s f

or its el f—D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds’ te sti m ony “ inv ad ed the pr ovi nc e of

the 11 j ur y ” by opi nin g tha t D ef

en dant w as the pe rs on p ic tur ed r athe r than si m

ply a llo w ing 12 the j ur

y to vie wthe sur

ve ill an ce video an d dr aw it s own c onc lus ion

. D ef en dant 13 further argues that De tective Rickards’ testim ony wa s not helpful in that it provid ed 14 no basis for concluding th at D etective Rickards wa s m ore likely to correc tly

identify 15 D ef en dant f ro m the sur ve ill an ce vid eo than the j ur y . T he se a rg um en ts r ai se iss ue s of 16 first im

pression in Ne w Me xico, although this Court has previou sly im plied that a lay 17 wit ne ss m ay gi ve an op in io n as to th e id en ti ty o f a p ers on pi ctur edon vi de o. Se e, e . g. , 18 Sta te v . D om bos , 2008 -N MC A -0 35, ¶ ¶ 1, 5- 6, 143 N

. M. 668 , 180 P

. 3d 6 75 ( af fi rm ing13

1 the defendant’ s convictio n for crim inal sexual penetration when the victim testified 2 that the arm

and swea ter pictured on a video of the assault belon ged to her husb and). 3 { 22} Ru le 11- 701 N MR A pe rta in s to opi nio n te sti m ony by lay w itn es se s and 4 pr ovi de s, in pe rt ine nt p ar t, that “ [i ] f a w itn es s is not te sti fy ing a s an e xpe rt , te sti m ony 5 in the form of an opin ion is lim ited to one that is . . . helpful . .

. to determ ining a fa ct 6 in issu e[. ] ” See Ru le 11- 701( B)

. A s re ce ntl y sta te d by the Il lin ois S upr em e Co urt i n 7 a fa ct ua lly sim ilar ca se , “ [l ] ay

opi nio n id en tif

ic at ionte sti m ony

is he lpf ul t o a 8 de te rm ina tio n of

w he the r the ind ivi dua l de pic te d inasur ve ill an ce r ec or din g is the 9 de fe ndant w he re the re is som e ba sis fo r co nc lud ing tha t the w itn es s is m or e lik el y to 10 correc tly

identify the defendant from

the ph o t o g ra p h t han is the jury .” Pe ople v. 11 Th om pson , 201 6 IL 11 8667, ¶ 41, 49 N

. E

. 3d 3 93 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 12 citation om itted). T he Th om pson c ourt i de nti fi ed

f ive fa ct or s tha t it de em ed

“ re le vant 13 to a de te rm ina tio n of w he the r a lay w itn es s is m or e lik el y than th e j ur

y to ide nti fy

the 14 defendant co rr ec t l y.” Id

. ¶ 43. T he se f

ac tor s are ( 1) “ the w itn es s’ s ge ne ra l l ev el of 15 fam ili ar ity

w iththe de fe ndant’ s a

ppe ar an ce ”; ( 2) “ the w itn es s’ s f am ili ar ity w iththe 16 defendant’ s appearance at the tim e the surveillance phot ograph w as taken or w hether 17 the def

en dant w as dr es se d inam an ne r sim ilar to the ind ivi dua l de pic te d” ; ( 3) 18 “ whether the defendant disgu ised his [or her] appearance at the tim e of the off ense”; 19 (4 ) “ w he the r the de fe ndant had al te re d his [or he r] ap pe ar an ce pr ior to tr ia l” ; and ( 5)14

1 “ the de gr ee of

c lari ty of the sur ve ill an ce re co rd ing an d the qua lity a nd c om ple te ne ss 2 of t he subject’ s depiction in the recording.” Id

. ¶¶ 44, 46-48. T he existence of even 3 one of the se f ac tor s “ ind ic at es [ tha t] the re is so m e basis f or c onc lud ing that the 4 witness is m ore likely

to correc tly

identify t h e d ef

en d ant from

the photo graph than 5 is the jury .” Id

. ¶ 49 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). W e ag re e w ith 6 the Th om

pson co ur t’s ap pr oa ch an d a do pt it forou r an al y si s o f th is cas e. 7 { 23} In Th om

pson , the de fe ndant w as c ha rg ed w ithpr oc ur em en t of

a nhy dr ous 8 amm on ia—a com

po ne nt of m et ha m

ph et am in e—i n vi ol at io n o f st at e la w. Id

. ¶ 4. T he 9 theft wa s captured on surveillance video, which was play ed for the j ury and showed 10 a w hite m ale w ith thin ning hair carry ing a bucket and ho se while we aring a grey 11 t-s hi rt a nd bl ack , bag gy pan ts . Id

. ¶ 8. T he H am ilt on C ounty S he ri ff ’ s D ep art m ent 12 cr eate d st ill im ag es f

ro m the sur ve ill an ce vid eo a nd c ir cu la te d th ose im ag es a m ong 13 ot he r la w enf

or cem en t ag en ci es . Id

. ¶ 9. Of ficer Brian Huff of the Mt. V ernon Police 14 Dep art m en t vi ewed th e st il l i m ag e an d i de nt ifi edth e d efen da nt . Id

. ¶ 2 3. Office r H uff 15 testified at trial that despite the b l u rr i n es s of the im age, “ he rec ogni zed [the] 1 6 d ef en d an tb ec au s e h e ‘h ad p re v i o u s d ea l i n g s wi t h h i m .’ ” I d. Although th e Th om

pson 17 co urt ap plied

“ pr ec au tio nary

pr oc ed ur es ” tha t r en de re d O ff

ic er H uf f’ s te sti m ony12 In T

h o m pson , the de fe ndant arg ue d, a nd the I lli noi s S upr em e Co urt a ddr es se d, 3 13 w he the r lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce rs sho uld

be pr ohi bit ed fr om of

fe ri ng i de nti fi catio n 14 te sti m ony

ba se d onpr ior

int er ac tio ns w ithc ri m ina l def en da nts be ca

use “ a co m

ple te 15 an d un inh ibi te d c ro ss- ex am ina tio n r eg ar din g th e w itn es s’ s f am ili ar ity is not pos sib le 16 sin ce que sti ons co uld r ev ea l i nf

orm at ionabo ut the de fe ndant’ s c ri m ina l pa st and 17 unfairly cause th e jury to focus on th at.” Id

. ¶ 55. T he Th om

pson court concluded that 18 a de fe ndant’ s a

bil ity to en ga ge in “ uni nhi bit ed c ro ss- ex am ina tio n” is a que sti on o f 19 tr ia l t ac tic s and, the re fo re , doe s no t i m pli cate ade fendan t’ s r igh t t o c onf ro nt 20 wit ne ss es . Id

. ¶¶ 55-56. How ever, it applied a set of “ precautionary procedures” that 21 re qui re the tr ia l c ourt t o ( 1) a llo wthe de fe ndant t o exa m ine the of fi ce r out sid e the 22 pr es en ce of the j ur

y , (2 ) lim it the of

fi ce r’ s te sti m ony to how lon g he or she kne wthe 23 de fe ndant and h owf

re que ntl y the y int er ac te d, a nd ( 3) ins tr

uc t the j ur y that i t ne ed

not 24 giv e an y

w ei ght to the of fi ce r’ s te sti m ony

a nd shoul d not draw an y inf er en ce s f ro m 25 th e fac t t ha t t he wit ne ss is a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer. Id

. ¶ 59. 15 1 ina dm iss ibl e, it

c onc lud ed

that O ff ic er H uf f’ s te sti m ony

w as oth er

w ise a dm iss ibl e 3 2 be ca use his pr ev iou s in te ra ct ion s w ith th e de fe ndant r en de re d hi m “ m or e lik el y

to 3 correc tly

identify [the] defendant than the jury .” Id

. ¶ ¶ 59, 65. 4 { 24} De fendant doe s not argue that he is entitled to the precaution ary procedures 5 ap pli ed in T h o m pson . I nstea d, he a rg ue s si m ply that D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds’ 6 id en ti fic at io n was no t h el p f u l t o t he jury an d, t he refo re, t he jury m us t d raw i ts own 7 co nc lus ionf

ro m the sur ve ill an ce vid eo it se lf

. T his a rg um en t f

ai ls t o c onsi de r the f

ive 8 Th om pson fac tors. Fir st, D efendant him self describes the qualityof the surveillance 9 vid eo a s “ gr ai ny ” an d of “ poor qua lity . ” Se co nd, w ith re spe ct to his f am ili ar ity w ith 10 D ef en dant, D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds t es tif ie d th at the tw o have ha d “ co unt le ss 11 int er ac tio ns, ” inc lud ing a n inc ide nt in w hic h the y w er e inv olv ed

in a tr af fi c ac ci de nt.16

1 Fi na lly , w ithr es pe ct

to al te ratio ns i n D ef

en da nt’ s a

ppe ar an ce , D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds 2 te sti fi ed

that D ef en dant “ w as m

uc h th inn er ” at

the ti m e of

the inc ide nts . T he se 3 considerations render a dm issib le D etective Rickar ds’ testim ony opini ng that 4 D ef en dant i s th e pe rs on p ic tur ed on the sur

ve ill an ce vid eo . B ecause D et ec tiv e 5 Ri ck ar ds’ te sti m ony w as a dm iss ibl e unde r the c ir cu m stanc es , it doe s no t c onst itu te 6 pla in e rr or

a s arg ue d by

D ef en da nt. 7 SUFFICI ENCY OF THE EVIDE NCE 8 { 25} D ef

en dant a ddi tiona lly

a rg ue s th at

suf fi ci en t e vid en ce doe s no t su ppor t hi s 9 convictio ns for burglary of a vehicle. He asserts this argum ent in three parts: (1) as 10 to the inc ide nt at the Su pe r 8 Mot el , ( 2) a s to the inc ide nt at the Co m fo rt I nn, a nd ( 3) 11 as to the L eS ab re a nd the P ri us. 12 { 26} Our r eview of

whether sufficient evidence supports a convi ction is a tw o-step 13 pr oc es s. Gonzales , 2008 -N MC A -1 46, ¶ 5. “ [W ] e vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost 14 favor ab le to the ve rd ic t, an d the n w e m ust m ak e a le ga l de te rm ina tio n of w he the r the 15 evidence viewe d in thi s m anner could justify a finding byany

rational trier of fac t that 16 each ele m en t o f th e cri m e ch arg edha s bee n est ab li sh ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” 17 Id

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

ks an d c itatio n om itt ed ). T his Co urt “ m ay ne ith er r ew ei gh 18 t he e vi de nc e n or

s ub st i tut e [ our ] j ud gm e nt f or t hato f t he j ur y . ” Sta te v . Sut

phi n , 19 1988 -N MSC- 031, ¶ 23, 107 N. M. 126, 753 P. 2d 1 3 1 4. Further m ore, “ [c] ontrary17

1 evidence suppo rting acquittal does not provide a b asis for reversal b ecause the j ury 2 i s f r e e t o r e j e c t[ t he d ] e f

e nd a nt ’ s ve r si ono f

t he f a c t s. ” St at e v. R ojo , 1999-NMS C3 001, ¶ 19, 126 N

. M. 438 , 971 P

. 2d 8 29. 4 The S uper 8 Motel 5 { 27} D ef

en dant c la im s th at

the ev id en ce at tr ia l w as not suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s 6 co nvi ct ion s be ca

use : ( 1) the dark -c olo re d pi ck up tru ck in the vid eo did not be lon g to 7 him ; (2) the person pictured on the surveillance vid eo wa s not hi m ; and (3) the L CPD 8 did no t recover any

stolen property . The first and second claim s raise purely fac tual 9 qu es ti on s, wh ic h a re b ey on d t he sco pe of o urrev ie w. Se e Sut phi n , 198 8- N MS C- 031, 10 ¶ 23 ( “ A r ev ie w ing c ourt m ay ne ith er r ew ei gh the e vid en ce nor su bs ti tu te it s 11 j udgm en t f

or that of the j ur y . ”)

. T he thi rd

is a co ntr ar

y e vid en ce c la im , w hic h c an not 12 fo rm th e b as is of a rev ers al

. Se e R ojo , 1999-NMS C-001, ¶ 19 (“ Contrary evidence 13 supp ortin g a cquit ta l do es not pr ovi de aba sis fo r re ve rs al be ca use the j ur

y is fr ee to 14 rej ect [the d] efendant’ s version of the facts.” ). 15 { 28} The surveillance video showed a d ark-colored pickup truck enter the Super 8 16 Mot el park ing lot

a t appr oxi m at el y 2:1 6 a. m . I t the n sh ow ed a pe rs on— ide nti fi ed

by 17 D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds a s D ef en dant— fo rc ibl y en te ri ng the L eS ab re an d the Si en naa nd 1 8 r e mo v i n g i t e ms f

r o m th e S i e n n a . Wh e n a s k e d b y D e t e c t i v e R i c k a r d s ab o u tt h e i t e ms 1 9 t ak en fr o m

t h e S i en n a d u ri n g a c u s t o d i al i n t er v i ew , De fe n d an tre s p o n d ed “ I d o n ’t18

1 re m em ber w ha t I got ” an d th at “ Bo bby did som ethin g w ithit

. ” Su che vid en ce is 2 suff i ci en t to sup port Def

endant’ s convictio ns with respect to the Super 8 Motel 3 ch ar ge s. 4 The C om fort Inn 5 { 29} D ef

en dant c la im s th at

the ev id en ce at tr ia l w as not suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s 6 co nvi ct ion s be ca

use : ( 1) he w as a t ho m e in b ed a t the ti m e of the inc ide nt and ( 2) he 7 loaned the Mustang to a frie nd that evenin g. Both c laim s poin t to c ontrary evidence, 8 whi ch can no t fo rm

th e b as is of a rev ers al

. Se e id. ¶ 19 ( “ Co ntr ar

y e vid en ce sup portin g 9 acq ui tta l do es not

pr ovi de aba sis f

or r ev er sa l be ca

use the j ur

y is fr ee to re

j ec t [ the 10 d] efendant’ s version of the facts.” ). 11 { 30} O ff

ic er L az o te sti fi ed

that, a ft er

f oll ow ing D ef

en da nt to the Co m fo rt

I nn 12 park ing lot , he w itn es se d D ef en da nt f orci bl y e nte ri ng the F -2 50 and the P ri us. 13 D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds t es tif ie d th at D ef en da nt a ba ndon ed the Mus tang i n th e pa rk ing lot 14 an d f le d th e park ing lot

on fo ot , p as sin g di re ct ly in fr ont of D et ec tiv e Ri ck ar ds’ 15 vehicle. S uch evidence is sufficient to sup port Def endant’ s convictio ns with respect 16 to the Co m fo rt

I nn c harg es .19

1 The L eSabre and t he P rius 2 { 31} D ef

en dant a ddi tio na lly

c la im s th at

the j ur y instru ct ion s a s gi ve n pl ac ed a 3 bur de n onthe S tate to pres en t e vid en ce that pr ove d ow ne rs hip of the L eS ab re f

or 4 Count 1 and the Prius for C ount 3. W e disagree. 5 U JI 14- 1630 N MR A pr ovi de s, in pe rt ine nt p ar t: 6 Fo r y ou t o f ind the de fen dant g uil ty

of bur glary [ as c ha rg ed

in 7 Co unt

___ ____ ] , the state m

ust pr ove to y our

sa tis fa ct ion be y ond a 8 reasonable doubt each of the following elem ents of the crim e: 9 1. T he de fe ndant en te re d a [v eh ic le ] [w at er cr af t] [ ai rc ra ft ] 10 [dw el lin g] [ or ] [ other str uc tur e] w ith out

auth or iz at ion ; [ the le as t 11 in tru si on co ns ti tu te s an en try.] 12 Id

. ( fo otn ote s om itt ed ). T he distr ic t c ourt m odi fi ed U JI 14- 1630 a nd i nstru ct ed the 13 j ur y a s f oll ow s: 14 Fo r y ou to find [D ] ef en da nt guil ty of bur glary as c ha rg ed in Co unt 15 1, the [ S] ta te m ust pr ove to y our sa tis fa ct ion be y ond a re as ona ble doubt 16 each of the f

ollowing elem ents of the crim e: 17 1. [D ] efendant entere d a vehicle (2000 Buick La Sabre (sic)) 18 ow ned by

T he re saG raha m

w ith out auth or iz at ion ; the le as t i ntr usi on 19 co ns ti tu te s an en try[,] 20 21 an d 22 Fo r y ou t o f ind [D ] ef en da nt gui lty of

bur glary a s c ha rg ed

in Co unt 23 3, the [S ] ta te m ust pr ove to y our

sa tis fa ct ionbe y ond a re as ona ble doubt 24 each of the f

ollowing elem ents of the crim e:20

1 1. [D ] efendant entere d a vehicle (2011 Toy ota Prius) owned 2 by

Jay W arre n without autho rization; the least intrusio n constit utes an 3 en try[.] 4 { 32} A lth oughthe j ur y ins tr uc tio ns a s gi ve n te ch nic al ly inc lud ed ow ne rs hip of

the 5 vehicles by

specific per sons as elem ents of t he crim es, w e have previously rej ected 6 the a rg um en t tha t the er ro ne ous ad dit ionof

astatut or y e le m en t t o aj ur

y ins tr uc tio n 7 crea te s an ad di ti on al ess en ti al ele m en t u nd er t h e a p p li cab le st atut e. See State v. 8 Carpenter , 201 6- N MC A -0 58, ¶ 15, 374 P

. 3d 7 44 ( hol din g th at “ the suf fi ci en cy of the 9 evidence shoul d be as s es sed against the elem ents of the charged crim e. If the j ury 10 instructio n requires t he j ury to find guilt on those elem ents . . . the defendant has been 11 ac co rd ed

the pr oc ed

ur e tha t this Co urt ha s requ ire d to pr ote ct the pr es um

pti on o f 12 inn oc en ce ” (a lte ratio ns, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ) (quo tin g 13 Musacchio v. U

nited Sta tes , ___ U. S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 709, 713, 715 (201 6)). 14 { 33} Although the erroneous additio n in the present case wa s a factual r ather than 15 a sta tut or

y el em en t, w e fi nd the a na ly sis a rt ic ula te d in Carpenter pe rs ua siv e. S ec tio n 16 30-16-3(B) p rohibits the unautho rized entry of “ anyve hi cl e.” (Em

ph as is ad de d.) 17 D ef en dant “ w as pr ope rl y

c harg ed w iththe statut or

y e le m en ts” of

bur gl ary, an d the 18 j ur y ins tr uc tio ns g av e D ef

enda nt “ a m eanin gf

ul o ppor tun ity to de fe nd .

. . a ga ins t 19 those charges[.] ” Carpenter , 201 6- N MC A -0 58, ¶ 16. T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s e rr one ous21

1 ad dit ionof

the ow ne rs ’ na m es to the j ur y ins tr uc tio ns give n did not, the re fo re , c re at e 2 ana ddi tio na l e le m en t t o be pr ove d be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. 3 SPEEDY TRI AL 4 { 34} Finally , D efendant argues that the delay betwee n his in dictm en t an d h i s trial 5 vio la te d his cons tit

uti ona l rig ht to a

spe edy tr ia l. A lth oughD ef

en da nt m ad e a de m an d 6 im m ed ia te ly a ft er his ind ic tm en t, he ne ve r as se rt ed avio la tio n of

his r igh t t o aspe edy 7 tr ia l pr ior to tr ia l. T his Co urt dis cu sse d suc h ac ir cu m stanc e in State v. V aldez , f ro m 8 w h i c h we qu o t e l i b e r a l l y: 9 [T he d] ef en dant a lso c ont en ds that he w as de nie d hi s si xth 10 am en dm en t r igh t to a spe edy tr ia l. D et er m ina tio n of whe the r a de fe ndant 11 has been denied his constit u t i o nal right to a speedy trial re quires 12 w ei ghi ng four fa ct or s: le ngth of the de lay , re as on f or the de lay , a sse rt ion 13 of

the r igh t, a nd p re

j udi ce to the de fen da nt. T he pr inc ipa l st um bli ng 14 blo ck fo r [the ] de fe ndant is his fa ilure to ra ise his co nst itu tio na l cl ai m 15 in the dis tr ic t c ourt. 16

. . . . 17 Be ca

use [ th e ] d e f

e n d an t d i d n ot r ai se the c onst itu tio na l c la im unt il 18 thi s a

ppe al , the re w er e no d istri ct c ourt pr oc ee din gs t o de ve lop f ull y the 19 facts r elating to th e Barker [ v. W ing o , 407 U

. S. 514 ( 1972 )] f ac tor s, a nd 20 th e d is tri ctco ur t h adno op po rtu ni ty to wei gh th em . . . . 21 Although [the] defend an t s and their counsel are allowe d 22 co nsi de ra ble le ew ay in del ay ing the ir de m an d f or aspe edy 2 3 t r i a l b e f

o r e t h e t r i a l c o u rt , t h e i s s u e mu s tb e r a i s e da ts o me 24 poin t. Acom plete failure to ra ise it in the trial court, a s was 25 the c as e he re , pr ec lud es our c onsi de ratio n of the iss ue on 26 ap pe al , f or the si m

ple r ea son tha t the re is nothin g to 27 re vie w . T he re is no dec isi on of the dis tr ic t cour t w ei ghi ng22

1 the f

ac tor s c onsi de re d and no r ec or d f ro m w hic h w e co uld 2 ind ep en de ntl y e va lua te the gov er

nm en t’ s c ondu ct . 3 1990 -N MC A -0 18, ¶

¶ 14- 15, 109 N

. M. 759 , 790 P. 2d 1040 (i nte rn al quot at ionm ar ks 4 an d c itatio ns o m itt ed ). O ur S upr em e Co urt ha s si m ilarl y de cl ine d to co nsi de r spe edy 5 trial claim s “ absent a ruling by the district court.” State v. Collier , 201 3- N MS C- 015, 6 ¶ 41, 301 P

. 3d 3 70. “ If a de fe ndant doe s not ra ise a co nst itu tio na l spe edy tr ia l i ssu e 7 before the district c ourt, there is nothing for an appellate court to review. ” Id

. Be ca use 8 D ef en dant d id n ot i nvok e a ru lin g on the iss ue in the dis tr ic t cour t, w e do not a ddr es s 9 his spe edy

tr ia l arg um en t. 10 CON CLU SION 11 { 35} F o r

t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e a f

f i rm. 12 { 36} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

13

____ ___ __ ________ ____ ____ ____ ___ 14 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e
15 WE CO NCUR:

16

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 17 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e
18

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 19 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e