State v. Guerra, 2012 NMSC 027

Guerra was convicted of first-degree murder and tampering with evidence for the fatal stabbing of Andrew Gama during a March 2010 fight in a Clovis apartment complex.
Witnesses testified Guerra played with a folding knife at a party; he claimed to carry it for protection and reportedly said after the fight, “I think I stabbed that fool seven or eight times.”
Autopsy showed Gama suffered thirteen stab wounds, including to the heart, left lung, and spleen; death resulted from these wounds; victim had alcohol and marijuana in system.
Police searched Guerra’s home but recovered neither the clothes he wore nor the knife used; the two autopsy-related exhibits were inadvertently left on defense counsel’s table during deliberations.
On direct appeal, Guerra argued (i) insufficiency of evidence for tampering, (ii) district court abused its discretion over new-trial ruling due to missing exhibits, (iii) ineffective assistance for not returning exhibits, (iv) insufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder, and (v) various due process claims; the Supreme Court issued its decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Tampering sufficiency	Guerra relied on missing weapon as sole basis	Evidence insufficient to prove specific intent to tamper	Tampering conviction reversed; insufficient evidence to prove specific intent
Harmless error for not sending two exhibits	Omission violated Rule 5-609	Omission prejudiced defense	Omission harmless; no reversible error
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Failure to return exhibits prejudiced defense	Was ineffective assistance	No prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim rejected
First-degree murder sufficiency	Evidence supported deliberate murder	Defendant acted impulsively; lack of deliberate intent	Evidence sufficient to uphold willful and deliberate murder
Other due process claims	Various trial- and procedure-related errors violated due process	These errors denied fair trial	Claims lack merit; no due process violation shown

State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, 144 N.M. 815 (N.M. 2008) (tampering requires intent with evidence or overt act; cannot rely solely on missing evidence)
State v. Nathaniel Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, 140 N.M. 94 (N.M. 2006) (circumstantial evidence can prove intent to deliberate)
State v. Riley, 2010-NMSC-005, 147 N.M. 557 (N.M. 2010) (sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, 128 N.M. 711 (N.M. 2000) (deliberate intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence; short time may suffice)
State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, 126 N.M. 438 (N.M. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for trial decisions; harmless-error framework)
State v. Chavez, 1999-NMSC-024, 126 N.M. 438 (N.M. 1999) (harmless-error review for non-constitutional errors)
State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, 275 P.3d 110 (N.M. 2012) (harmless error analysis applied to evidentiary rulings)
State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, 146 N.M. 301 (N.M. 2009) (non-constitutional error review; probability of different verdict)