State v. Arrendondo, 1 N.M. Ct. App. 673

Background

Arrendondo shot and killed Aragon claiming self-defense; witnesses contradicted claim, saying Aragon unarmed and inside house when shots were fired.
Jury convicted Arrendondo of first‑degree murder, assault with intent to commit a violent felony, negligent child abuse (two counts), tampering with evidence, and shooting at a dwelling.
Defense sought a fifth continuance one week before trial to test an unidentified fragment found in Arrendondo’s jacket; trial court denied continuance and later excluded the fragment.
Defense sought to admit the jacket fragment into evidence to bolster self‑defense; the court admitted the jacket but excluded the fragment for lack of foundation.
Appellant argues trial errors include denial of continuance, erroneous jury instruction about assault with intent to commit a violent felony, and ineffective assistance of counsel, in addition to speedy‑trial concerns raised on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse discretion in denying a fifth continuance?	State sought delay to test fragment; Torres factors weigh in favor of delay.	Continued delay needed to test evidence crucial to self‑defense.	No abuse of discretion; Torres factors support denial.
Was the unidentified fragment properly excluded?	Fragment could be bullet‑like and support self‑defense.	Fragment lacked authentication/foundation to be relevant.	Excluded fragment affirmed due to lack of foundation.
Was there sufficient evidence for assault with intent to commit a violent felony against Nicole Rael?	Bullets into house show intent to kill against Nicole.	Evidence did not prove Nicole’s presence or intent against her; potential misinstruction.	Sufficient evidence under record but instruction erroneous; count reversed due to faulty instruction.
Is there sufficient evidence to sustain negligent child abuse and tampering convictions?	Endangerment to children shown by gunfire and missing gun supports mens rea and tampering.	No proof Arrendondo knew Adrian was present; no overt act shown for tampering.	Adrian negligent‑abuse conviction and tampering conviction reversed; Jasmine negligent‑abuse affirmed.
Was Arrendondo denied effective assistance of counsel?	Counsel failed to timely investigate fragment and failed to pursue intoxication defense.	Record inadequate to decide; habeas corpus recommended for proper development.	No prima facie showing; denial of direct‑appeal relief; habeas corpus may be pursued.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Salazar, 141 N.M. 148, 152 P.3d 135 (2007-NMSC-004) (continuance factors guide abuse‑of‑discretion review)
State v. Moreland, 185 P.3d 363 (2008-NMSC-031) (abuse of discretion standard for continuances)
State v. Torres, 976 P.2d 20 (1999-NMSC-010) (Torres factors for continuance decision)
State v. Jade G., 141 P.3d 659 (2007-NMSC-010) (sua sponte fundamental rights considerations in jury instructions)
State v. Maestas, 140 P.3d 933 (2007-NMSC-001) (fundamental error when conviction may rest on nonexistent crime)
State v. Mascareñas, 129 N.M. 230, 4 P.3d 122 (2000-NMSC-017) (retrial permissible if evidence supports conviction under erroneous instruction)
State v. Silva, 144 N.M. 815, 192 P.3d 1192 (2008-NMSC-051) (need overt act and specific intent for tampering conviction)