State v. Lozoya
34,651
| N.M. Ct. App. | Apr 5, 2017Background
- Lozoya (27) rode to Walmart with a female friend and an unrelated 15-year-old (Child); Child admitted she intended to steal alcohol and testified Lozoya acted as a lookout and pointed out bottles.
- Child placed two bottles in her purse; Walmart asset protection stopped them, recovered the bottles, and both were arrested; Lozoya was charged with felony contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM) and petty-misdemeanor shoplifting.
- Lozoya testified he did not know Child would shoplift and believed she was 21; he invoked his right to testify and admitted two prior convictions when cross-examined.
- The prosecutor’s closing referenced Lozoya’s prior convictions, the presence of a condom in Lozoya’s pocket, and argued emotionally about minors; no contemporaneous objection was made to many comments.
- The district court denied pretrial exclusion of prior convictions and allowed impeachment; a jury convicted Lozoya on both counts; on appeal the Court of Appeals addressed double jeopardy, statutory construction, sufficiency of evidence (including knowledge-of-age), admissibility of prior convictions, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lozoya) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy (CDM + shoplifting from same transaction) | Vacate the lesser punishment (shoplifting) when multiple convictions violate double jeopardy | Section 30-16-20(C) bars separate/additional charges arising from same transaction; thus CDM should be vacated instead | Vacate the shoplifting conviction (lesser punishment); affirm CDM |
| Sufficiency – legally adequate alternative ("allowed" Child to shoplift) | Evidence (Child’s testimony, AP observations, Lozoya’s conduct) supports "allow" as showing/consent or assistance | As a near-stranger, Lozoya had no duty to control Child; omission/inaction insufficient for CDM | Rejects Lozoya’s duty argument; jury had sufficient evidence to sustain CDM |
| Sufficiency – knowledge of Child’s age element for CDM | Knowledge of age need not be proved; statute protects children broadly and does not require proof defendant knew age | CDM should require proof defendant knew child was under 18 | Holds CDM does not require proof the adult knew the child’s age; no knowledge-of-age element required |
| Impeachment and prosecutorial misconduct | Prior convictions admissible to impeach when defendant testifies; some closing comments were borderline but overall not fundamentally unfair | Prior robbery conviction should be excluded (not dishonesty or too remote); closing argument improperly appealed to passion and sexual-predator imagery | Admits prior conviction under Rule 11-609 (probative > prejudice); finds some prosecutorial remarks improper but isolated and not fundamental error |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (explains jury inability to parse legally insufficient alternative in a general verdict)
- Gorman v. People, 19 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2000) (discusses mental-state application to age element in contributing statutes)
- State v. Ramirez, 198 P.3d 866 (N.M. Ct. App.) (interpreting §30-16-20(C) as limiting multiple charges from a single shoplifting incident and vacating shoplifting convictions)
- State v. Santillanes, 27 P.3d 456 (N.M.) (describes rule of lenity applicability when statutory ambiguity persists)
- State v. Montoya, 306 P.3d 426 (N.M.) (routine practice: when double jeopardy requires vacatur, vacate the conviction carrying the lesser punishment)
- State v. Day, 577 P.2d 878 (N.M. Ct. App.) (robbery characterized as involving dishonesty for impeachment purposes)