State v. Maestas, 412 P.3d 79

Background

Juliana Barela, the State’s key witness and Maestas’s girlfriend, originally reported that Maestas battered her on December 2, 2009; she gave a recorded hospital statement, a written statement, and grand‑jury testimony, leading to an indictment.
Maestas was released pretrial under a no‑contact order, later held after allegations of threats; while jailed Barela funded calls and exchanged ~588 jail calls (55+ hours) with Maestas.
Barela later signed an uncounseled affidavit of nonprosecution and ultimately asserted the Fifth Amendment at a pretrial hearing, refusing to testify; the district court declared her unavailable.
The State sought admission of Barela’s prior statements under the forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing doctrine, relying primarily on the jail calls to show Maestas procured her unavailability by wrongdoing.
The district court found Barela unavailable but concluded the State failed to prove Maestas caused or intended to cause her unavailability (the court found no threats aimed at preventing testimony) and excluded the prior statements; it dismissed the indictment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing exception requires an overt threat of harm and reversed, holding wrongdoing need not be an overt threat and remanding for application of clarified principles.

Issues

Issue	State’s Argument	Maestas’s Argument	Held
Whether "wrongdoing" for forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing must be an overt threat of physical harm	No—wrongdoing can include coercion, persuasion, intimidation, or other pressure designed to procure unavailability	District court did not explicitly require overt threat; argued State failed to prove causation/intent by preponderance	Wrongdoing need not be an overt threat; coercion, persuasion, control, etc., can satisfy the requirement
Whether the Alvarez‑Lopez elements (witness expected, unavailable, defendant caused unavailability, defendant intended result) were met here	Record (jail calls, history of domestic violence, timing of recantation) supports inference of causation and intent	Barela’s recantation and assertion of the Fifth were voluntary; State did not meet burden	Remanded for district court to determine causation and intent under clarified standards (State bears preponderance burden)
Proper standard of review for Confrontation Clause admissibility	De novo review for constitutional admissibility questions	District court factual findings reviewed for abuse of discretion	Constitutional admissibility questions reviewed de novo; factual inferences (causation/intent) resolved on remand with appropriate fact‑finding
Admissibility of prior testimonial statements absent live testimony	If forfeiture shown, prior statements (hospital, grand jury, 911) admissible despite Confrontation Clause	Absent forfeiture, prior testimonial statements are inadmissible and indictment dismissible	If the State proves by preponderance that Maestas caused and intended to cause unavailability, the prior statements may be admitted under the forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing exception

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits admissibility of testimonial out‑of‑court statements)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing requires intent to make witness unavailable; history of domestic abuse is highly relevant to intent)
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) (early articulation of the forfeiture principle: one should not benefit from one’s own wrong)
State v. Alvarez‑Lopez, 98 P.3d 699 (N.M. 2004) (adopting four‑part test for forfeiture: expected witness, unavailability, defendant’s misconduct caused unavailability, defendant intended result)
State v. Romero, 156 P.3d 694 (N.M. 2007) (reaffirming Alvarez‑Lopez and emphasizing narrow, careful application of forfeiture exception)
United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001) (wrongdoing need not be a crime; knowledge, complicity, planning, or other involvement can establish procurement)
United States v. Scott, 284 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2002) (advisory committee note support—wrongdoing can include coercion, undue influence, or pressure)
United States v. Montague, 421 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2005) (upholding forfeiture where history of domestic violence and no‑contact violations supported inference that defendant caused witness’s unavailability)