State v. Mendoza, 35,837

Defendant Senovio Mendoza convicted of first-degree (felony) murder for an armed robbery during which co-defendant Sloan shot and killed Timothy Wallace; Mendoza received life sentence and appealed directly to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Facts (from accomplice Donald Ybarra): Mendoza recruited Ybarra and Sloan after using meth, planned an armed home-invasion to collect a debt, purchased makeshift masks, and directed Sloan to enter Wallace’s home with a rifle; Wallace reached for a gun and Sloan shot him.
Jury was instructed that felony-murder requires the mens rea for second-degree murder: intent to kill or knowledge that the act created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.
Mendoza challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence to prove he possessed the requisite mens rea and (2) the district court’s qualification and admission of Detective David Rodriguez as a bloodstain-pattern-analysis (BPA) expert.
Detective Rodriguez had ~80 hours of BPA training, related forensic training, and organizational involvement; his BPA testimony corroborated other evidence that Wallace was kneeling when shot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of mens rea for felony-murder	State: evidence supports inference Mendoza knew the armed robbery created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm	Mendoza: State failed to prove he intended or knew Sloan would shoot Wallace; mens rea cannot be presumed from the felony	Affirmed — viewing evidence in favor of verdict, jury could infer Mendoza knew the strong probability of death from the armed home-invasion and gave proper instructions on mens rea
Admissibility of BPA expert testimony	State: Detective Rodriguez was qualified by training/education/experience under Rule 11-702 and his testimony would assist the jury	Mendoza: Rodriguez lacked sufficient real-world BPA experience and publication credentials to qualify as an expert	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in qualifying Rodriguez; any alleged error was harmless because his testimony only corroborated other evidence

State v. Holt, 368 P.3d 409 (N.M. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Ortega, 817 P.2d 1196 (N.M. 1991) (felony-murder requires mens rea of second-degree murder)
State v. Suazo, 390 P.3d 674 (N.M. 2017) (second-degree murder requires proof the defendant knew actions created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm)
State v. Duran, 140 P.3d 515 (N.M. 2006) (intent is usually inferred from facts and circumstances)
State v. Alberico, 861 P.2d 192 (N.M. 1993) (trial court has broad discretion in admitting expert scientific testimony)
State v. Torrez, 210 P.3d 228 (N.M. 2009) (deficiencies in an expert’s qualifications affect weight, not admissibility)
State v. Tollardo, 275 P.3d 110 (N.M. 2012) (nonconstitutional evidentiary error is harmless if there is no reasonable probability it affected the verdict)