Opinion ID: 891664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-Examination of Aultman

Text: {26} Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the State's motion in limine regarding an incident involving witness Aultman. He also claims for the first time on appeal that the court's decision deprived him of his right to fully cross-examine an accuser against him under the Sixth Amendment. However, since the issue of denial of the right to confrontation may not be raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Torres, 2005-NMCA-070, ¶ 20, 137 N.M. 607, 113 P.3d 877, we will not address the Sixth Amendment issue, but only the district court's grant of the State's motion in limine on an evidentiary basis. See State v. Lucero, 104 N.M. 587, 591, 725 P.2d 266, 270 (Ct.App.1986) (holding that the defendant's hearsay objection was not sufficiently specific to alert the trial court to the claimed constitutional error[,] a violation of his confrontation clause rights). {27} On June 7, 2004, two and a half weeks prior to Victim's murder, Aultman was in his car with his friend, George Allison, when Allison allegedly exited the car and threatened three people with a gun. Aultman and Allison were subsequently detained and a loaded .22 caliber revolver was recovered from the vehicle. Aultman told police that the gun belonged to his girlfriend. Due to a lack of participation by the alleged victims, no charges were filed against either Aultman or Allison. The State filed a motion in limine, requesting that the court preclude Defendant from soliciting any testimony in reference to the June 7 incident on the basis that the incident is more prejudicial than probative. The court granted the State's motion on that basis. {28} With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence, we generally apply an abuse of discretion standard where the application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment. ... Dewitt v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 2009-NMSC-032, ¶ 13, 146 N.M. 453, 212 P.3d 341. A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. State v. Simonson, 100 N.M. 297, 301, 669 P.2d 1092, 1096 (1983). Rule 11-403 NMRA provides in part that evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. ... This rule gives the trial court a great deal of discretion in admitting or excluding evidence. ... Behrmann v. Phototron Corp., 110 N.M. 323, 327, 795 P.2d 1015, 1019 (1990). {29} Defendant argued that the June 7 incident established that Aultman had a weapon before the murder and that this fact left open the possibility that ... Aultman had inflicted the fatal shots. He also argued that the court's decision to prohibit any testimony regarding the June 7 incident did not allow him to develop additional evidence that ... Aultman was the slayer. {30} Regarding the probative value of the June 7 incident, any connection between the incident and Aultman's involvement in the Victim's murder is too attenuated. It was not Aultman that was suspected of assaulting people with a gun; he was merely in the same car as the alleged perpetrator. Additionally, the gun found in the car during the June 7 incident was a .22 caliber revolver, as opposed to a .45 caliber revolver used in the murder. The district court noted this attenuation when it asked Defendant's trial counsel, [D]oesn't it seem pretty remote that we're talking about a passenger, not a defendant, not the driver, not the weapon's owner? Doesn't it seem we're pretty remote in that regard? Regarding the prejudicial factor of the Rule 11-403 balancing test, the State argued that it is real prejudicial to try and bring up the fact that a witnessnot even the accused, but a witness was involved in an aggravated assault that he was not accused of. We agree with the State. Generally, any reference to an incident involving a person threatening people with a gun would be considered prejudicial. In this case, given that a gun was used to kill Victim, any mention of Aultman being involved in an assault that also involved a gun would have a higher prejudicial effect. {31} The district court's ruling that the prejudicial nature of the testimony outweighs the probative value ... related to the ... June 7th, 2004 incident[] was not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case, Simonson, 100 N.M. at 301, 669 P.2d at 1096, and therefore, it did not abuse its discretion when it excluded testimony regarding the June 7 incident.