State v. Jimenez
2017 NMCA 39
N.M. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant (pro se with standby counsel) was charged with: (1) felon in possession of a firearm (Section 30-7-16) and (2) resisting/evading/obstructing an officer (Section 30-22-1(B)) after an incident at the Arid Club in Las Cruces where police were called and Defendant was later taken into custody by a tactical team.
- Police recovered a .22 handgun inside the club near where Defendant had been sitting and found 45 rounds of ammunition in a bag inside Defendant’s car; Defendant admitted on the phone to Detective Downs that he was armed and told Downs he wanted the police to shoot him.
- Defendant spoke by phone with Detective Downs for several minutes, agreed sporadically to surrender but never did; SWAT/K-9 entry followed, Defendant allegedly resisted physically (threw a chair, kicked, struck at a K-9) and was subdued with force.
- At trial the evidence custodian (crime scene technician) testified she collected the bag and ammunition; Defendant did not call certain officers he wanted to confront and did not timely object to admission of the ammunition at trial.
- Jury convicted on both counts; on appeal the Court considered (1) Confrontation Clause/chain-of-custody, (2) sufficiency of evidence for both counts, (3) jury instruction omission on constructive possession, (4) admission of evidence of Defendant’s pending civil suit, and (5) alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause — admission of ammunition and bag from Defendant’s car | Admission proper because evidence custodian (who collected items) testified from personal knowledge; no testimonial hearsay; chain-of-custody adequate | Violated Sixth Amendment because officers who prepared/executed the search warrant and arrested Defendant were not called; testimony relied on unavailable officers’ statements | Affirmed — no Confrontation Clause violation; custodian testified and evidence admitted within court’s discretion |
| Sufficiency — resisting/evading (§30-22-1(B)) | Telephone refusal to surrender and failure to comply with officer commands constituted ‘‘evade/flee’’ | No surreptitious flight; conduct was refusal/resistance, not evasion; insufficient evidence of fleeing/evading | Reversed — insufficient evidence for §30-22-1(B); conviction vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Sufficiency — felon in possession (§30-7-16) | Circumstantial and direct evidence (Defendant’s admission on phone, Chandler’s statement, firearm located within reach, matching ammunition in car) established possession | Gun was in open area; alternate possessor possible; car belonged to girlfriend, not Defendant | Affirmed — sufficient evidence of actual or constructive possession; jury could infer knowledge and control |
| Admission of Defendant’s pending civil suit | Relevant to Defendant’s bias/credibility; permissible impeachment; limited questioning allowed | Irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and confusing under Rule 11-403 | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; admission permissible for impeachment and any error was not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (discussing limits of hearsay/basis evidence in forensic testimony)
- United States v. Ibarra-Diaz, 805 F.3d 908 (10th Cir.) (testimony that communicates no hearsay typically not Confrontation problem)
- United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (bias is relevant to impeachment and admissible)
- State v. Lopez, 314 P.3d 236 (N.M.) (discussed Confrontation Clause in pretrial hearings)
- State v. Barber, 92 P.3d 633 (N.M.) (omission of definitional possession language not necessarily fundamental error)