State v. Herrera
2015 NMCA 116
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Samuel Brown (17) and Joe Azure went to Carlos Herrera’s apartment to meet someone to record music; Daniel Herrera (Carlos’s brother) and others were present.
- Carlos accused Brown/Azure of stealing cocaine; an argument ensued and Carlos left then returned with Daniel, who picked up a kitchen knife.
- Daniel held the knife at Brown’s throat; Carlos prevented Brown and Azure from leaving (yelled, forced the door shut) and told them they could not leave until the cocaine was found.
- A third man (“Zack”) arrived, struck Azure (requiring stitches) with what Azure thought was a firearm; victims were stripped to underwear, forced to sit while their clothes were searched, and money/IDs were taken.
- Carlos and Daniel were tried together and convicted of kidnapping, aggravated assault, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping (among other charges); they appealed raising three principal challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a Trujillo-based jury instruction was error | State: district court properly refused instruction because Trujillo facts differ | Defs: Trujillo required an instruction limiting kidnapping when restraint is incidental to another crime | Court: No error; Trujillo distinguishable because the restraint here was prolonged and not merely incidental |
| Whether kidnapping and aggravated assault convictions violate double jeopardy (unitary conduct) | State: evidence supports independent factual bases for each offense | Defs: the same continuous struggle (knife use) produced both convictions, so only one conviction should stand | Court: No double jeopardy; jury could find independent conduct supporting each offense (e.g., Carlos’s yelling/door-closing vs. Daniel’s knife) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping and aggravated assault | State: testimony showed force/intimidation, prolonged confinement, and knife use supporting both convictions | Defs: only the knife prevented leaving; restraint is incidental to assault so insufficient for separate convictions | Court: Evidence sufficient for both—restraint lasted ~1.5–2 hours, victims told not to leave, and knife/brandishing supported aggravated assault |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit kidnapping | State: joint acts (fetching Daniel, arming him, forcing victims to strip and searching) show agreement to confine | Defs: contested lack of proof of agreement/intent to conspire | Court: Evidence sufficient; circumstantial proof allowed inference that Carlos and Daniel acted together to confine victims |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Trujillo, 289 P.3d 238 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (restraint incidental to another crime may not be kidnapping)
- State v. Jernigan, 127 P.3d 537 (N.M. 2006) (preservation rule for tendered jury instructions)
- State v. Bunce, 861 P.2d 965 (N.M. 1993) (defendant entitled to jury instruction on supported theories)
- State v. Dominguez, 327 P.3d 1092 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (kidnapping complete when defendant with requisite intent restrains victim)
- State v. Largo, 278 P.3d 532 (N.M. 2012) (sufficiency standard: substantial evidence supports each essential element)
- State v. Urioste, 267 P.3d 820 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (independent factual bases can support non-unitary conduct findings)
- State v. Arrendondo, 278 P.3d 517 (N.M. 2012) (assault requires subjective and objective belief of imminent intrusion)
- State v. Contreras, 156 P.3d 725 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (if conduct not unitary, double jeopardy inquiry ends)
- State v. Bahney, 274 P.3d 134 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (accessory/aid-and-abet theory allows conviction without personally committing all acts)