Opinion ID: 1402588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Issues Related to the Death Penalty Aspect of the Case

Text: {44} The State filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty prior to trial. During the death penalty phase of Coffin's trial, the State argued that the killing of Chris Martinez, Jr. involved the aggravating circumstance of killing a witness. The jury deadlocked on whether the aggravating circumstance was present, and Coffin was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Chris Martinez, Jr. Despite the fact that Coffin did not receive the death penalty, Coffin nevertheless argues on appeal several points of error related to the State's seeking of the death penalty.
{45} The State filed its notice of intent to seek the death penalty approximately ten months after Coffin was first arrested and charged. Coffin argues that the State's decision to seek the death penalty was an act of vindictiveness for Coffin's decision not to plead guilty to the charges. Coffin therefore argues that the seeking of the death penalty violated his constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See State v. Brule, 1999-NMSC-026, ¶ 7, 127 N.M. 368, 981 P.2d 782 ([A] vindictive prosecution violates a defendant's right to due process.). {46} We recently addressed a similar contention. In Brule, the defendant argued that the prosecutor vindictively pursued a felony charge, following a nolle prosequi on misdemeanor charges, due to his refusal to plead guilty to the misdemeanor charges. Id. ¶ 2. We first determined in Brule that the nature of a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness warrants application of a de novo standard of review. Id. ¶ 6. We next declined to adopt a per se rule of presumptive vindictiveness for prosecutorial acts occurring at the pretrial stage of proceedings and, instead, concluded that `the defendant must show either: (1) actual vindictiveness or (2) a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, which then raises a presumption of vindictiveness.' Id. ¶ 10 (quoting United States v. Contreras, 108 F.3d 1255, 1262 (10th Cir.1997)) (emphasis added in original). {47} Applying this test from Brule, we conclude that Coffin has failed to demonstrate successfully either actual vindictiveness or a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness sufficient to shift the burden to the State to justify its decision. A defendant's decision to exercise his or her constitutional right to a criminal trial is a routine occurrence in the criminal justice system. See United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 381, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982) ([A] defendant before trial is expected to invoke procedural rights that inevitably impose some `burden' on the prosecutor.... The invocation of procedural rights is an integral part of the adversary process in which our criminal justice system operates.). Thus, standing alone, a prosecutor's decision to file a notice of intent to seek the death penalty after a defendant's exercise of the constitutional right to a trial but before the trial begins, regardless of the time lapse between arrest and the filing of the notice, fails to indicate any likelihood whatsoever that the State's decision is intended to punish a defendant for not pleading guilty. See Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 382-83, 102 S.Ct. 2485 ([T]he mere fact that a defendant refuses to plead guilty and forces the government to prove its case is insufficient to warrant a presumption that subsequent changes in the charging decision are unjustified.); cf. Brule, 1999-NMSC-026, ¶ 11, 127 N.M. 368, 981 P.2d 782 (By itself, the District Attorney's decision to pursue felony charges in district court after filing a nolle prosequi on the initial misdemeanor charges does not suggest a likelihood of vindictiveness.). Further, in this case, the grand jury indicted Coffin on two counts of a capital felony for which the potential punishment was death or life imprisonment, and the State charged him with an open count of murder. Additionally, although the State delayed filing a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, the State repeatedly indicated to Coffin that it viewed this case as a potential death penalty case. The possibility of the State seeking the death penalty was a continuing reality in this case. Under these circumstances, we cannot accept Coffin's characterization of the State's filing of a notice of intent to seek the death penalty in this case as a change in prosecutorial action, subsequent to the defendant's exercise of a right, that would subject the prosecutor's conduct to scrutiny for possible retaliation. Therefore, we conclude that Coffin's claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness is without merit.
{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).
{50} Coffin's final argument related to the death penalty aspect of this case rests on the trial court's excusal for cause of a potential juror, Estella Bachicha. On voir dire, the State, defense counsel, and the trial court questioned Ms. Bachicha about the death penalty. The trial court asked Ms. Bachicha if she could impose the death penalty in some situations, to which Ms. Bachicha answered, I don't think so. Upon hearing this answer, the trial court followed up with the question, You don't think you could in any situation? Ms. Bachicha responded no and that her answer was based on her belief in God. Ms. Bachicha also told the trial court, I don't know if I can take another person's life. Finally, Ms. Bachicha told the prosecutor that she could not impose the death penalty on Coffin under any circumstances. Based on these responses, the trial court excused Ms. Bachicha for cause. {51} Coffin claims that the trial court improperly discounted Ms. Bachicha's response to defense counsel that she thought she could listen to both the State and the defense, weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and vote for either the death penalty or life imprisonment. Coffin also notes that Ms. Bachicha indicated that her views on the death penalty would not affect her ability to determine guilt or innocence. Coffin argues that the improper excusal of Ms. Bachicha violated his due process rights and that the proper remedy for this error is the reversal of his conviction. {52} With respect to a potential juror's views on capital punishment in a death penalty case, it is well established that a juror is properly excludable for cause if the juror's views would `prevent or substantially impair the performance of his [or her] duties as a juror in accordance with his [or her] instructions and his [or her] oath.' State v. Sutphin, 107 N.M. 126, 129, 753 P.2d 1314, 1317 (1988) (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980))). Because a trial court's decision to excuse a prospective juror for cause based on his or her views on the death penalty will necessarily depend on a judge's determination of that juror's demeanor and credibility, id., the trial court is in the best position to `assess a juror's state of mind.' State v. Clark, 1999-NMSC-035, ¶ 5, 128 N.M. 119, 990 P.2d 793 (quoting Sutphin, 107 N.M. at 129, 753 P.2d at 1317). As a result, we review a trial court's excusal for cause of a prospective juror for a clear abuse of discretion or manifest error. Sutphin, 107 N.M. at 130, 753 P.2d at 1318. {53} The trial court in this case concluded that, despite some minor inconsistency, Ms. Bachicha's overall response clearly indicated that she could not give the death penalty under any circumstances. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. In any case, we reject Coffin's argument that the proper remedy for any error in this circumstance would be the reversal of his conviction. The improper excusal of a prospective juror for cause based on the juror's views on capital punishment requires that a death sentence be vacated. Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 659-61, 107 S.Ct. 2045, 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987). However, an excusal of this nature affects only the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial and does not affect the determination of guilt. See Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 545, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968); see also Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 517-18, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). Because Coffin did not receive the death penalty and has presented no evidence that the jury was unable to impartially determine his guilt or innocence, any potential error in excusing Ms. Bachicha for her inability to impose the death penalty could not have caused any prejudice to Coffin.