State v. Estrada Comacho
309 Neb. 494
| Neb. | 2021Background
- On Jan 22, 2019, Kent Albrecht was shot after meeting with Derek Weaver and Monty Goin to purchase a pound of methamphetamine; Albrecht gave $5,000 cash to Christian Estrada Comacho, who walked toward another vehicle and did not return with drugs.
- Shots were fired at Albrecht’s vehicle; police later found $2,000 (including five $100 bills) in a black boot at Comacho’s residence.
- Phone and Facebook evidence showed communications between Comacho and others (Gallardo, Ortiz) around the time of the incident; jail phone calls from Comacho contained Spanish terms that investigators interpreted as drug- and gun-related slang.
- Investigator Timothy Champion (a bilingual officer) translated portions of Comacho’s jail calls by two-way interactive video because he had tested positive for COVID-19; Champion testified about his translations and qualifications at trial.
- The jury convicted Comacho of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and aiding and abetting a robbery; he received concurrent 14–18 year terms and appealed, arguing confrontation, foundation for translation, hearsay/coconspirator admission, insufficiency, new trial error, and excessiveness of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Comacho) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation — two-way interactive video for Champion | Video testimony satisfied confrontation because Champion testified, was cross-examined, and public-health necessity (Champion COVID‑positive) justified remote testimony under Maryland v. Craig | Two‑way video denied face‑to‑face confrontation; Craig’s necessity standard not met | Court applied Craig: necessity satisfied (symptomatic COVID positive witness) and reliability assured (two‑way video, cross‑examination, recording available); no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Foundation for translation | Champion was qualified: lifelong bilingual use, annual police proficiency tests, routine translation experience; translation admissible under State v. Martinez | Champion lacked formal certification; insufficient foundational showing of translation competence | Court found Martinez’s foundation met (knowledge, skill, experience, training); translations admissible |
| Hearsay — Facebook messages as coconspirator statements | Messages were party admissions and coconspirator statements; independent evidence (witness testimony, metadata, phone contacts) established prima facie conspiracy | Admission impermissibly bootstrapped (relying on the messages themselves); Gallardo and Ortiz not shown to be coconspirators and unavailable for cross‑examination | Court held independent evidence (Weaver/Albrecht testimony, message metadata/phone activity) supported a prima facie conspiracy; messages admissible under coconspirator exception |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence (witnesses, messages, phone records, recovered cash) supported conspiracy to distribute and aiding/abetting robbery | No proof Comacho agreed to distribute meth; cash given voluntarily; no proof he fired shots or was present for shooting | Viewing evidence most favorably to State, a rational jury could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed |
| Sentencing / New trial | Sentences were within statutory limits; trial court properly considered factors; new trial denied because underlying claims rejected | Sentences excessive; court failed to afford adequate weight to mitigation (substance abuse/treatment); new trial warranted | Court found no abuse of discretion: sentences (14–18 years concurrent) within range and in lower portion; denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martinez, 306 Neb. 516 (Neb. 2020) (translations of a defendant’s out‑of‑court foreign‑language statements admissible where translator shown qualified and testifies subject to cross‑examination)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (Confrontation Clause may permit absence of face‑to‑face confrontation only if necessary to further an important public policy and reliability is otherwise assured)
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1988) (emphasizing defendant’s right to face‑to‑face confrontation)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1987) (court may consider hearsay statements in making preliminary determination of coconspiracy)
- U.S. v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2018) (illustrative contrasting treatment of remote testimony and necessity analysis)
- State v. Bell, 194 Neb. 554 (Neb. 1975) (robbery may be ongoing during asportation/escape and force/fear can occur after initial taking)