Court Opinion

ID: 9786226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:51:09.367475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:42.923078
License: Public Domain

VIGIL, Judge (specially concurring). {78} I write separately only to disagree with the majority’s criticism of the Alvarez-Lopez requirement of a foundation showing that a defendant intended by his misconduct to prevent the declarant from testifying before hearsay of that unavailable witness may be admitted as substantive evidence against a defendant in a criminal trial under the constitutional doctrine of waiver by misconduct. Under this doctrine, a defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment, and therefore his hearsay objection as well, is forfeited by his own wrongdoing. Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 158. {79} I do not agree that the State has presented “several compelling reasons why a showing of intent to silence should not be required” (Majority Opinion, ¶ 30), in “cases of the murder of the witness or the death of the witness arising out of a domestic violence situation.” Majority Opinion ¶ 33. My disagreement is primarily on policy grounds. It is well documented that victims of domestic violence may recant their testimony on the witness stand or seek to minimize the effects of domestic violence on themselves or others. See Cynthia L. Barnes, Annotation, Admissibility of Expert Testimony Concerning Domestic-Violence Syndromes to Assist Jury in Evaluating Victim’s Testimony or Behavior, 57 A.L.R. 5th 315, 1998 WL 141644 (1992). It is also equally true that self-serving, untrue statements, sometimes motivated by revenge, are made by partners in the context of domestic violence allegations. See Adams v. State, 727 So.2d 983, 983 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1999) (affirming conviction of perjury after wife filed a false affidavit in a domestic violence action); Dix v. State, 267 Ga. 429, 479 S.E.2d 739, 742 (1997) (recognizing that a client can make self-serving statements to her attorney and paint a picture of the marital relationship that is inaccurate and biased in considering whether statements made to her attorney are admissible in a prosecution of husband for murdering his ex-wife). Practitioners dealing with domestic violence know of these contradictions, and our own cases recognize the problem. See Lujan ex rel. Lujan v. Casados-Lujan, 2004-NMCA-036, ¶ 10,135 N.M. 285, 87 P.3d 1067 (recognizing that the motivation for a domestic abuse case can be to further the parent’s interest); State v. Buck, 33 N.M. 334, 338, 266 P. 917, 919 (1927) (recognizing, in a domestic violence case, that the admission of a spontaneous declaration is often sought where the declarant has died. “In such cases great caution is to be exercised. The danger of admitting merely self-serving declarations, or those prompted by revenge, must be guarded against.”). I therefore hesitate to recognize a special exception to admit hearsay evidence substantively in a category of cases where contradictory, self-serving statements are known to be made. It must be remembered that once a determination is made that the constitutional right of confrontation has been waived, the hearsay is admissible as substantive evidence, regardless of its reliability. Even the catch-all provision governing the admissibility of hearsay of an “unavailable” witness in our own Rules of Evidence recognizes that intent is relevant. “A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if [her] exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.” Rule 11-804(A) NMRA (emphasis added). {80} Further, I cannot agree to recognizing a special hearsay exception “in cases of the murder of the witness or the death of the witness arising out of a domestic violence situation.” It is perfectly conceivable, as this ease demonstrates, for a defendant to have accidentally killed someone with no intention of preventing them from testifying. Nevertheless, the majority would allow admission of the deceased’s hearsay. This is contrary with the principle that there is a presumption against the waiver of a constitutional right, and that for a waiver to be effective, there must be an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of the right. See State v. Herrera, 2004-NMCA-015, ¶ 8, 135 N.M. 79, 84 P.3d 696. Additionally, it would be anomalous for the hearsay to be excluded in a white collar crime case because no showing could be made that the defendant intended by his misconduct to prevent the declarant from testifying, but admitted in a homicide case even if all the evidence was that the defendant did not have such an intent. {81} The first basis for the majority’s criticism is its view that the requirement arises out of a confusion over the “proper terminology” used to describe the constitutional doctrine. Specifically, the majority agrees with certain post Alvarez-Lopez cases which describe a distinction between “waiver” which conceptually supports an intent element and “forfeiture” which does not conceptually require an intent element. The majority agrees that it is more appropriate to view the constitutional doctrine as grounded on “forfeiture” than “waiver” and therefore supports disposing of the intent element. Further, since the authorities cited were decided after Alvarez-Lopez, the majority suggests that our Supreme Court may have been misled by this confusion over the “proper terminology” used to describe the constitutional doctrine. Majority Opinion ¶ 30-34. {82} I do not believe our Supreme Court was misled by any such confusion. Instead, I believe our Supreme Court was fully conscious of cases holding there is no intent requirement for the constitutional doctrine to apply, and deliberately chose to follow those cases which require intent. {83} Alvarez-Lopez quotes the following from the Second Circuit opinion of Mastrangelo, 693 F.2d at 272-73: “If a witness’ silence is procured by the defendant himself, whether by chicanery, by threats, or by actual violence or murder, the defendant cannot then assert his confrontation clause rights}.]” Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, ¶ 8, 136 N.M. 309, 98 P.3d 699. Alvarez-Lopez also specifically quotes Dhinsa, 243 F.3d at 653, that “Rule 804(b)(6) [of the Federal Rules of Evidence] ‘was intended to codify the waiver-by-misconduct rule as it was applied by the courts at that time.’ ” Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, ¶ 9, 136 N.M. 309, 98 P.3d 699. On the very same page referenced by Alvarez-Lopez, the Second Circuit Dhinsa court refers to its own opinion of Miller, 116 F.3d at 668, as “holding that neither the existence of an ongoing proceeding nor a finding that the defendant’s intention was to prevent the declarant from testifying is required to admit the declarant’s out-of-court statement.” Dhinsa, 243 F.3d at 652-53. Miller specifically states, “Although a finding that defendants’ purpose was to prevent a declarant from testifying[ ] is relevant, such a finding is not required.” Id. at 668 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). {84} Despite its clear knowledge of these authorities, our Supreme Court made a conscious decision in Alvarez-Lopez to reject them and to require the State to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that “the defendant intended by his misconduct to prevent the declarant from testifying” as one of the elements of waiver by misconduct. 2004-NMSC-030, ¶ 10, 136 N.M. 309, 98 P.3d 699. Finally, our Supreme Court stated in Alvarez-Lopez that “[o]ne of the primary purposes of the forfeiture by wrongdoing rule is to deter criminals from intimidating or ‘taking care of potential witnesses.” Id. ¶ 14 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our Supreme Court therefore concluded, “[without a showing that [the defendant] intentionally prevented [the witness] from being a witness against him, this purpose is not served by admitting the [hearsay] testimony.” Id. {85} Secondly, the majority suggests that the requirement arises out of misplaced reliance upon Cherry, because Cherry improperly equates the Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) requirement that “the defendant intended by his misconduct to prevent the declarant from testifying” as also being constitutionally required to admit the hearsay of an unavailable witness. Majority Opinion ¶¶24, 35-36. This reasoning overlooks the fact that when Rule 804(b)(6) was adopted in 1997, the defendant intended by his misconduct to prevent the witness from testifying in virtually every case in which the constitutional waiver doctrine was recognized. See, e.g., United States v. White, 116 F.3d 903, 909-12 (D.C.Cir.1997) (involving the murder of a potential witness that the defendant suspected was working with the police); Houlihan, 92 F.3d at 1278 (concluding that a defendant waives his constitutional confrontation rights by murdering a potential witness to prevent the witness from testifying); United States v. Thai 29 F.3d 785, 814-15 (2d Cir.1994) (involving murder of potential witness); United States v. Aguiar, 975 F.2d 45, 47 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding that defendant waived his confrontation rights by threatening witness not to testify); Rouco, 765 F.2d at 985, 995 (involving murder of undercover police officer involved with the defendant in drug transactions while in the process of arresting the defendant); United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 630 (5th Cir.1982) (“We conclude that a defendant who causes a witness to be unavailable for trial [by murdering him] for the purpose of preventing that witness from testifying also waives his right of confrontation[.]”); Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193, 1199, 1201 (6th Cir.1982) (concluding that the constitutional waiver was applicable where the defendant caused a witness under his control to refuse to testify based on the fifth amendment privilege); United States v. Balano, 618 F.2d 624, 629-30 (10th Cir.1979) (holding that witness grand jury testimony was admissible when defendant waived his constitutional right of confrontation by making witness unavailable by threats to his life), overruled on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Cherry, 217 F.3d 811 (10th Cir.2000); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1354 (8th Cir.1976) (same). But see Miller, 116 F.3d at 668 (stating that while a finding that the defendant’s purpose is to prevent witness from testifying is relevant, it is not necessary); Mastrangelo, 693 F.2d at 272-73 (“[I]f a witness’ silence is procured by the defendant himself, whether by chicanery, by threats, or by actual violence or murder, the defendant cannot then assert his confrontation clause rights[.]”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has not stated that this requirement of the rule is not constitutionally required. In fact, Crawford cites Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 158-59, as recognizing the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62, 124 S.Ct. 1354. Reynolds applied the common law and held that when the defendant kept the witness away from his trial, that conduct waived his constitutional right of confrontation. Id. at 158-60. Since Reynolds was not criticized, and Rule 804(b)(6) remains unchanged, I disagree with the majority’s criticisms. {86} For the foregoing reasons, I specially concur.