Opinion ID: 2630333
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Double Jeopardy Issues Kidnapping and Tampering Convictions

Text: {22} The United States and the New Mexico Constitutions both guarantee that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V; N.M. Const. art. II, § 15. The federal protection is applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). Because Defendant does not argue that New Mexico double jeopardy protection should be interpreted any differently from that of the United States, we evaluate his claims under federal double jeopardy principles. See State v. Reyes, 2002-NMSC-024, ¶ 10 & n. 2, 132 N.M. 576, 52 P.3d 948. Double jeopardy presents a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 6, 140 N.M. 644, 146 P.3d 289. {23} Among other protections, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects a person from being punished more than once for the same offense (multiple punishments). State v. Frazier, 2007-NMSC-032, ¶ 13, 142 N.M. 120, 164 P.3d 1. Multiple punishments may involve two types of issues, both of which we address here. The first issue, which we analyze with respect to the sentences for murder and kidnapping, is whether this is a double-description case in which Defendant is being punished for violating multiple statutes that should be `deemed the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.' Id. (quoting Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3, 8, 810 P.2d 1223, 1228 (1991)). The second issue, which we address with respect to the tampering convictions, involves a unit-of-prosecution analysis, where we examine whether Defendant has been improperly punished for `multiple violations of a single statute based on a single course of conduct.' Id. (quoting Swafford, 112 N.M. at 8, 810 P.2d at 1228).
{24} Defendant was indicted for two alternative forms of first-degree murder, willful and deliberate murder and a murder committed in the commission of a dangerous felony (felony murder). The jury was given separate jury verdict forms for each of those theories instead of a single first-degree murder general verdict form and was instructed that the two theories were alternative ways in which a guilty verdict for first-degree murder could be returned. The trial court properly instructed the jury that one of the essential elements of the felony murder charge was that Defendant committed the felony of first-degree kidnapping. The jury was properly instructed on the elements of first-degree kidnapping and was given a separate verdict form for the kidnapping charge. {25} Instead of selecting only one of the alternative murder theories, the jury returned guilty verdicts for both willful and deliberate murder and felony murder. Both theories of first-degree murder were wholly consistent with the evidence and justified by the reality that a person is capable in fact and in law of willfully and deliberately committing first-degree murder during the commission of a felony. See State v. Fry, 2006-NMSC-001, ¶ 18, 138 N.M. 700, 126 P.3d 516 ([F]irst degree murder is a single crime, whether supported by a single theory or by multiple theories. . . .). The jury also found Defendant guilty of first-degree kidnapping, which had been the predicate offense of the alternative felony murder verdict. {26} The district court sentenced Defendant for one count of kidnapping and one count of first-degree murder. Under New Mexico precedent, it would have been a violation of double jeopardy to impose more than one homicide conviction for one death. See State v. Santillanes, 2001-NMSC-018, ¶ 5, 130 N.M. 464, 27 P.3d 456. When faced with jury verdicts for two separate murder theories as to the same killing, we have held that one general judgment of conviction for first-degree murder should be entered, as was done here. Reyes, 2002-NMSC-024, ¶ 18. The court also sentenced Defendant on his separate conviction of first-degree kidnapping. {27} Defendant argues that punishing him for both kidnapping and murder under the circumstances of this case constitutes a double-description form of double jeopardy violation. Where a defendant alleges that he has been punished for violation of two or more statutes for the same conduct, we must determine whether the Legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments for the separate statutory violations. Frazier, 2007-NMSC-032, ¶ 18. {28} Swafford guides our analysis on this issue. That case held that a defendant's punishment for both incest and criminal sexual penetration arising out of the same conduct constituted double jeopardy, and the opinion articulated a two-part test for determining legislative intent to punish. Swafford, 112 N.M. at 13, 810 P.2d at 1233. Swafford's threshold inquiry is: [W]hether the conduct underlying the offenses is unitary, i.e., whether the same conduct violates both statutes, which in most cases leads to a judicial inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether acts associated with each statute are sufficiently separated by time and space to allow for separate prosecution and conviction under each statute. Frazier, 2007-NMSC-032, ¶ 15 (quoting Swafford, 112 N.M. at 13-14, 810 P.2d at 1233-34). If the acts are sufficiently separated, there is no multiple punishment concern, and therefore there is no need to proceed to the next part, which would be to determine whether the Legislature intended to create separately punishable offenses through two different statutes addressing the same unitary conduct. Id. ¶ 18. {29} We clarify that the challenge here does not address convictions for both felony murder and its predicate felony of kidnapping. If that were the case, we would be compelled to reverse the kidnapping conviction. See State v. Gonzales, 2007-NMSC-059, ¶ 12, 143 N.M. 25, 172 P.3d 162 (holding that reversal of the predicate felony conviction was necessary where the general verdict of murder returned by the jury did not indicate whether the first-degree murder conviction was based on a willful and deliberate or a felony murder theory). In this case, we do not have a Gonzales situation where we cannot be certain the jury intended to convict for willful and deliberate murder. The jury specifically found Defendant guilty of both forms of first-degree murder, although the district court correctly imposed only one murder conviction and sentence, to avoid the double jeopardy violation that would have resulted from punishing Defendant for both felony murder and willful and deliberate murder. With the guidance of the jury's verdicts on both alternative theories instead of only one, the court also was able to avoid the double jeopardy violation that would have resulted from punishing Defendant for both felony murder and its incorporated predicate offense of first-degree kidnapping. The jury's return of verdicts on both alternative theories, even though only one punishment can be imposed, is actually a preferable procedure that serves to ensure just punishment without creating unnecessary double jeopardy issues. We therefore need analyze only one double jeopardy issue, whether Defendant's convictions for both first-degree kidnapping and willful and deliberate first-degree murder result in multiple punishments for the same offense. {30} The essence of Defendant's argument is that the acts constituting the kidnapping were not sufficiently distinct from the acts constituting the murder for two separate crimes to have been committed. This requires an examination of the trial record to determine whether the evidence shows that Defendant committed the acts constituting the crime of kidnapping, in addition to committing separate acts constituting first-degree murder. Under Swafford, we look to whether a defendant's acts are separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness to be considered non-unitary conduct. State v. Contreras, 2007-NMCA-045, ¶ 21, 141 N.M. 434, 156 P.3d 725 (quoted authority omitted). Distinctness may be established by determining whether the acts constituting the two offenses are sufficiently separated by time or space, looking to the quality and nature of the acts, the objects and results involved, and the defendant's mens rea and goals during each act. See Swafford, 112 N.M. at 13-14, 810 P.2d at 1233-34; State v. Franco, 2005-NMSC-013, ¶ 7, 137 N.M. 447, 112 P.3d 1104. `The proper analytical framework is whether the facts presented at trial establish that the jury reasonably could have inferred independent factual bases for the charged offenses.' Contreras, 2007-NMCA-045, ¶ 21 (quoting Franco, 2005-NMSC-013, ¶ 7). {31} To find Defendant guilty of willful and deliberate murder, the jury was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed the victim with the deliberate intention to take her life. In doing so, they were called upon to evaluate a great deal of circumstantial evidence, including the sustained deadly attack by Defendant, using his hands and other weapons, including a bloody screwdriver and possibly some bloody wooden blocks found at the school. See Reyes, 2002-NMSC-024, ¶ 15 (citing State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 24, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829, for the proposition that evidence of the method used to kill the victim, . . . when combined with circumstantial evidence and reasonable inference arising from the surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to prove the requisite intent to kill). The multiple and varied wounds inflicted on Rustvold, the sustained brutality of Defendant's attack, and the multiple weapons all confirm that the jury was justified in concluding that Defendant intended to kill his victim to keep her from reporting him to the authorities, and that he intended to do what it took to keep her from leaving P-17 alive. Significantly, Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for willful and deliberate murder. {32} The evidence also provided a sufficient basis for the jury's finding that Defendant committed the separate crime of kidnapping by, in the terms of the jury instructions, taking, restraining, confining or restraining the victim by force, intimidation or deception with the intent to hold her against her will to inflict death, physical injury or a sexual offense. See UJI 14-403 NMRA 2007. {33} The district court made specific and well-supported findings supporting the conclusions that Defendant's initial motive in restraining the victim was for the purpose of a sexual assault. The record included evidence that (1) the victim, who had been a volunteer rape crisis counselor, had made it clear to those who knew her that she would use every means to resist a sexual assault, (2) Defendant had been seen acting suspiciously around her classroom on more than one occasion, (3) all of the victim's lower clothing had been removed, (4) her underpants had been placed back on her body but were inside out, (5) her brassiere was torn and one breast was exposed, (6) she had inflicted defensive scratches on Defendant's hands and arms, and (7) blood smears in the classroom indicated that the victim had struggled while being held to the floor during the course of the events. After Defendant killed her, he replaced part, but not all, of her lower clothing before wrapping her body for disposal in a place where he hoped it could not be found. {34} Looking at the totality of the evidence related to the two separate crimes, it was altogether reasonable for the jury to conclude that Defendant had first restrained Rustvold for the purpose of sexually assaulting her and had made a number of efforts to accomplish that result. The evidence also provided ample support for a finding that he deliberately intended to make sure she was never going to leave the classroom alive after his sexual assault. Under those circumstances, there was substantial evidence supporting the jury's finding of two separate crimes of kidnapping and murder. See State v. McGuire, 110 N.M. 304, 309, 795 P.2d 996, 1001 (1990) (concluding that once the defendant had confined the victim with the requisite intent to hold the victim for service against her will, he had committed the crime of kidnapping, although the kidnapping continued throughout the course of defendant's other crimes and until the time of the victim's death); State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶¶ 67-70, 128 N.M. 482, 994 P.2d 728 (holding that evidence supported finding of separate kidnapping where the defendant restrained victim before strangling her with a rope); State v. Jacobs, 2000-NMSC-026, ¶ 25, 129 N.M. 448, 10 P.3d 127 (holding that evidence supported separate conviction of kidnapping where the defendant either restrained victim for purposes of sexual assault or restrained her during a 100-yard walk before he killed her). {35} While it is not necessary to reach Swafford's legislative intent test unless Defendant's conduct has been determined to be unitary, Defendant's separate convictions would have to be upheld under that test, as well. Restraining for the purpose of sexual assault is not an element of willful and deliberate first-degree murder and killing is not an element of kidnapping. When the elements of the statutes are not subsumed within the other, there is a presumption the statutes punish distinct offenses. State v. Sanchez, 2000-NMSC-021, ¶ 33, 129 N.M. 284, 6 P.3d 486.
{36} Defendant was indicted on 17 separate counts of tampering with evidence for his extensive efforts to conceal his crime. Prior to trial, he moved the district court to merge those 17 counts into two counts on double jeopardy grounds, one count for the disposal of the victim's body and the second for all remaining acts of evidence tampering. The district court deferred ruling on the merger motion until after the jury verdict. Two counts were dismissed by directed verdict and another two resulted in verdicts of not guilty. Thirteen counts resulted in guilty verdicts. Prior to sentencing, the court ruled that four of the 13 counts did not bear sufficient indicia of distinctness from other counts to be considered separately punishable crimes. The court ultimately sentenced Defendant to consecutive aggravated prison sentences on the nine remaining tampering counts: (1) cleaning blood from various surfaces in classroom P-17; (2) placing bloody items from P-17 in a trash dumpster 100 feet away; (3) painting over blood evidence on wooden blocks in P-17; (4) cleaning blood from building P-51; (5) cleaning blood from classroom K-1; (6) cleaning blood between school buildings K-1 through K-3; (7) hiding bloody items in trash bags in the janitor's closet; (8) hiding and cleaning his clothing at his home the next day; and (9) removing and disposing of Rustvold's body. {37} Defendant argues on appeal that eight of the nine counts  all but the disposal of the victim's body  were based on a continuous course of conduct with a single mens rea and should be considered only one crime instead of eight in order to avoid multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy clause. {38} The guidelines for our resolution are set forth in State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 34, 139 N.M. 211, 131 P.3d 61. Given the absence of any clear indication that the Legislature intended to punish Defendant separately for every item of evidence tampered with, Section 30-22-5, this Court will presume that the Legislature did not intend to impose multiple punishments for each step in a single continuous criminal action. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 34. {39} Because the tampering statute does not clearly define the intended unit of prosecution, the Court must consider whether Defendant's actions are separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness. Id. ¶ 35. Such indicia include the timing, location, and sequencing of the acts, the existence of an intervening event, the defendant's intent as evidenced by his conduct and utterances, and the number of victims. Id. (citing Herron v. State, 111 N.M. 357, 361, 805 P.2d 624, 628 (1991)). {40} In DeGraff, the defendant was found guilty of five counts of tampering with evidence for throwing three separate weapons out of his car window, abandoning his car and hiding his clothes upon returning home. Id. ¶ 32. The defendant contended that his acts constituted one count of tampering and the State argued that it constituted five counts. Id. ¶¶ 36, 38. Applying an indicia of distinctness analysis, we held that the defendant had committed three discrete crimes of tampering. Id. ¶ 36. We reasoned that the defendant hid the evidence at three different times in three different locations by throwing the weapons out of the car, later abandoning the car and then hiding his clothes the next day. Id. ¶ 37. While throwing the three weapons out of the car certainly were three physical acts, those acts were simply components of one continuous crime of disposing of the weapons. Id. ¶ 39. {41} We reach a similar result here. While Defendant performed dozens of individual physical acts in disposing of and altering a great number of evidentiary items, there were really only three conceptually separate crimes of tampering in this case, just as there were in DeGraff. The first occurred at the school immediately after the murder, where Defendant engaged in a massive attempt to clean up the evidence at the crime scene. The second occurred when he took Rustvold's body from Albuquerque to Belen and disposed of it in an irrigation ditch. The third occurred the day after the murder, when he attempted to destroy and conceal evidence at his home. {42} To impose nine sentences for three separately punishable crimes would constitute multiple punishments for the same offense. On remand, the nine tampering convictions should therefore be consolidated to three, and the six remaining tampering convictions and sentences should be vacated.