Opinion ID: 1185008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Flight from Prosecution

Text: State's witness, police officer David Pacheco, obtained an arrest warrant for Ramirez on April 17, 1980. Ramirez was arrested a year later. At trial, the court permitted Officer Pacheco to testify over objections concerning Ramirez' flight and the efforts undertaken to effect his arrest during that year. He stated: We were unable to locate him, personally locate him in Roswell. We sent a warrant out to the field contacting informants, we entered him in the N.C.I.C. computer, the National Crime Information Center, and we made contact with other departments, specifically the Carlsbad Police Department, Sergeant Sadler. We publisized [sic] the fact of the warrant with both the local Crime Stop Program and the State-wide Crime Stopper Program. Evidence of Ramirez' flight from the scene of the crime is admissible and relevant because it tends to show a consciousness of his guilt. State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 624 P.2d 44 (1981). Ramirez admits that flight testimony is admissible. However, where there is no evidence that Ramirez knew of the efforts undertaken by the authorities to apprehend him during the time he was sought, the specific details of those efforts are irrelevant and immaterial and therefore inadmissible. In light of the disposition of this case under point I, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the admission of testimony of the efforts undertaken by the police to arrest Ramirez constitutes reversible error. We reverse the defendant's conviction and grant Ramirez a new trial. IT IS SO ORDERED. PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.