268 P.3d 515
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Night of May 30, 2007, at the desert pit outside Las Cruces where Defendant, intoxicated, joined a group that attacked others.
- Defendant and associates confronted the group with bats; Jeff was knocked unconscious and Crystal was threatened and assaulted.
- The group stole Jeff and Crystal’s phones; Cesar’s stereo faceplate and CDs were taken; Cesar’s truck and Red Bull car were damaged.
- Defendant and accomplices fled; police arrested them at a Circle K; Cesar’s vehicle parts and Red Bull cans were found in their car.
- At trial, the district court refused an intoxication instruction; Defendant was convicted on multiple counts; sentence was twelve years with nine suspended.
- On appeal, Defendant challenges intoxication instruction, confrontation rights, sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings on photography, and ineffective assistance; the court reverses on intoxication and remands for retrial on six counts, while affirming others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intoxication instruction should have been given | State | Castillo | Yes; instruction required; remand for new trial |
| Confrontation rights and cross-examination limitation | State | Castillo | Not preserved for review; issue not reached |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Cesar’s truck damage conviction | State | Castillo | Sufficient evidence to support conviction |
| Admissibility of photographic evidence | State | Castillo | Argument undeveloped; not reviewed on merits |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claims | State | Castillo | Claims not reviewable due to lack of identifying witnesses and preservation issues |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (1994) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict; intoxication standard)
- State v. Hernandez, 134 N.M. 510, 79 P.3d 1118 (2003-NMCA-131) (entitled to intoxication instruction if any evidence supports it)
- Martinez v. State, 91 N.M. 747, 580 P.2d 968 (1978) (inconsistent defenses allowed when supported by evidence)
- State v. Ellis, 144 N.M. 253, 186 P.3d 245 (2008-NMSC-032) (review for legal questions; preservation principles)
- State v. Tom, 148 N.M. 348, 236 P.3d 660 (2010-NMCA-062) (dual defenses and credibility considerations)
- United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1975) (supporting view that inconsistent defenses may be pursued)