Opinion ID: 1402588
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probable Cause to Seek the Death Penalty

Text: {48} Coffin argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the aggravating circumstance of murder of a witness. In State v. Ogden, 118 N.M. 234, 239, 880 P.2d 845, 850 (1994), we explained that a trial court should dismiss an aggravating circumstance that presents a question of law capable of determination without trial if the district court finds that the aggravating circumstance does not apply as a matter of law. By contrast, [w]hen the applicability of an aggravating circumstance raises a question of fact or a mixed question of fact and law, the district court should grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the aggravating circumstance only when it finds that there is not probable cause to support the aggravating circumstance. Id. at 240, 880 P.2d at 851. Because this case involves an aggravating circumstance that raises a question of fact, we review the trial court's decision to deny Coffin's motion to see whether the district court correctly evaluated probable cause to support the aggravating circumstance. Id. {49} The Legislature has provided as an aggravating circumstance for purposes of capital sentencing the murder of a witness to a crime or any person likely to become a witness to a crime, for the purpose of preventing report of the crime or testimony in any criminal proceeding. NMSA 1978, § 31-20A-5(G) (1981). At the hearing on Coffin's motion to dismiss the aggravating circumstance, the State introduced, as a basis for seeking the death penalty, the grand jury testimony of John Saldana. See Ogden, 118 N.M. at 240, 880 P.2d at 851 (Formal rules of evidence should be relaxed, and hearsay will be admissible.); see also State v. Smith, 1997-NMSC-017, ¶ 15, 123 N.M. 52, 933 P.2d 851. Saldana testified before the grand jury that Coffin told him that he killed Chris Martinez, Jr. because he witnessed Coffin killing the man Coffin later learned to be Chris Martinez, Sr. Coffin argued that, even if Saldana accurately stated that Coffin killed Chris Martinez, Jr. because he was a witness, Saldana's statement did not show that Coffin killed him for the purpose of preventing report of the crime or testimony in any criminal proceeding. Instead, Coffin attempted to explain that, in context, Saldana's statement meant that Coffin killed Chris Martinez, Jr. as a witness because he was concerned about retaliation from the Lomas Trece gang if Chris Martinez, Jr. told gang members that Coffin killed Chris Martinez, Sr. As we explained in Ogden, however, in evaluating a motion to dismiss aggravating circumstances, [t]he district court must not weigh the evidence or consider evidence of mitigating circumstances. 118 N.M. at 240, 880 P.2d at 850. We therefore agree with the trial court that Saldana's statement constituted probable cause of a statutory aggravating circumstance and that the task of ascertaining the meaning of the statement or the credibility of John Saldana was for the jury at trial. Cf. State v. Willis, 1997-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 16, 18, 123 N.M. 55, 933 P.2d 854 (concluding that the prosecution met the probable cause standard for the aggravating circumstance of murder of a witness and stating that [i]t would be inappropriate at the pretrial stage to require the State to show beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] killed the victim as a witness).