State v. Jimenez
34,375
| N.M. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2017Background
- On Feb. 25, 2012, Noe Jimenez (Defendant) was at the Arid Club in Las Cruces wearing a bandana, vest, and carrying nunchucks; police responded to a call and spoke with Detective Wallace Downs by phone and later a SWAT/K-9 team entered and arrested Defendant after use of force.
- Police recovered a .22-caliber handgun inside the club near where Defendant had been sitting and 45 rounds of ammunition in a bag in the car driven by Defendant’s then‑girlfriend.
- Defendant was indicted and convicted of (1) felon in possession of a firearm (he stipulated to the prior felony) and (2) resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer under NMSA 30-22-1(B).
- At trial Defendant proceeded pro se with standby counsel; he failed to properly subpoena officers he wished to call; Ms. Stella Carbajal (evidence custodian) collected and testified about the ammunition and chain of custody.
- Post-trial issues raised on appeal: Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of the ammunition, sufficiency of evidence for both counts, jury instruction on constructive possession, admission of evidence of Defendant’s pending civil lawsuit against the City, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause re: admission of ammunition and bag | State: testimony by the evidence custodian and other officers came from personal knowledge; no testimonial hearsay introduced | Jimenez: Confrontation Clause violated because officers who searched the car and signed the warrant were not called and their out-of-court statements underlie the evidence | Held: No Confrontation Clause violation — Ms. Carbajal personally collected the items and was cross‑examined; no testimonial hearsay in the admitted testimony. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting/evading (§ 30-22-1(B)) | State: refusal to comply with orders and telephonic interaction with Detective Downs and later physical resistance to SWAT supported conviction under (B) | Jimenez: Did not flee or evade; mainly refused to surrender and remained in place; conduct is resisting (D), not evading (B) | Held: Reversed — insufficient evidence for (B). Jury could not reasonably find fleeing/evading; defendant’s acts fit resisting under (D). |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession (§ 30-7-16) | State: Detective Downs’s testimony that Defendant said he was armed, Chandler’s statement to police, gun within arm’s reach where Defendant sat, and matching ammo in Defendant’s car supported possession | Jimenez: Gun was in an open area; car belonged to girlfriend; insufficient link to Defendant | Held: Affirmed — sufficient evidence (actual or constructive possession) supporting knowledge and control. |
| Admission of civil‑suit evidence & prosecutorial comments | State: evidence relevant to bias/credibility because Defendant sued the City for the same incident; prosecutor argued bias in closing based on admitted testimony | Jimenez: Evidence irrelevant, prejudicial, confusing; prosecutor repeatedly emphasized lawsuit; also alleged misconduct for not calling certain officers | Held: Admission of limited evidence about the pending lawsuit was within discretion (relevant to credibility); prosecutor’s references did not amount to reversible misconduct; failure to call witnesses was trial strategy, not misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay absent opportunity for cross-examination)
- State v. Carmona, 371 P.3d 1056 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (expert testimony reliant on unavailable testimonial basis evidence violates Confrontation Clause)
- State v. Huettl, 305 P.3d 956 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (Confrontation Clause analysis and testimonial hearsay principles)
- State v. Garcia, 116 P.3d 72 (N.M. 2005) (constructive possession: knowledge and control may be inferred from circumstantial evidence; ammo may support inference of gun control)
- State v. Barber, 92 P.3d 633 (N.M. 2004) (omission of definitional possession instruction is not necessarily fundamental error where the jury was otherwise properly instructed)
- State v. Gutierrez, 117 P.3d 953 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (interpreting evasion/flight under § 30-22-1(B) as affirmative conduct to avoid capture)