State v. Gallegos, 149 N.M. 704

Defendant Lawrence Gallegos was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, aggravated arson, and three conspiracies; kidnapping was subsumed under murder.
Convictions for two additional conspiracies were found to violate double jeopardy and those convictions were vacated on remand.
Trial evidence showed Victim was assaulted at Anaya's Taos home, heroin overdose administered, and Victim later killed by arson after a series of threats and actions.
Defendant was present at key moments, engaged in initial assault, guarded Victim, and participated in subsequent acts including attempts to kill and burning the scene.
Court applied a unit-of-prosecution approach to conspiracy, distinguishing one overarching conspiracy from multiple punishments, vacating two conspiracy convictions and remanding for resentencing.
Other issues addressed include the continuance request, the credibility of Martinez's testimony, and a new-trial motion based on alleged newly discovered evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conspiracy multiple punishments under double jeopardy	State argues multiple conspiracies may exist; substantial evidence supports each conspiracy	Gallegos argues distinct conspiracies to murder, kidnapping, arson.	Two conspiracy convictions vacated; one conspiracy remains; remanded for resentence at highest conspiracy level.
Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder	State asserts deliberate, willful action evidenced throughout the evening	Defense asserts lack of deliberate intent	Sufficient evidence supports deliberate first-degree murder.
Evidence of conspiracy to commit murder sufficiency	State shows agreement to kill Victim	Defense contends no distinct conspiratorial agreement	Conspiracy to commit murder supported; but core issue resolved under unit-of-prosecution analysis.
Continuance for defense witnesses			District court did not abuse discretion in denying continuance.
New trial on newly discovered evidence			Trial court’s denial affirmed; newly discovered evidence insufficient to warrant new trial.

Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1942) (single agreement governs multiple objects; one punishment)
State v. Sanders, 117 N.M. 452 (N.M. 1994) (standard for conspiracies; sufficiency review governs number of agreements)
State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050 (N.M. 2006) (unit of prosecution analysis; constitutional double jeopardy framework)
State v. Ross, 86 N.M. 212 (Ct. App. 1974) (conspiracy often shown by circumstantial evidence; number of agreements is fact question)
State v. Orgain, 115 N.M. 123 (N.M. 1993) (conspiracy as continuing crime; one overarching agreement can evolve)
State v. Pham, 136 P.3d 939 (Wash. 2006) (multi-factor approach to distinguish one vs. multiple conspiracies)