State v. Montoya
2017 NMCA 33
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Joseph Montoya and others robbed Angel Arroyo, then Montoya shot and killed Arroyo and left the scene.
- Montoya returned hours later with accomplices, removed remaining cash from Arroyo’s pocket, poured gasoline through the residence and on the body, and set the residence on fire.
- Montoya was convicted of multiple offenses, including a second-count robbery based on the posthumous taking.
- On appeal Montoya challenged the second robbery conviction, arguing a person cannot be robbed after death and that Arroyo lacked the required “immediate control” once dead.
- Montoya also raised ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a theft (larceny) lesser-included instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of robbery conviction based on taking from deceased after killing | The State argued the post-killing taking was part of the same transaction as the robbery/homicide and thus falls within the robbery statute | Montoya argued one cannot rob a dead person; Arroyo lacked immediate control after death and personhood ends at death | Court held robbery statute applies where the taking is directly connected to the antecedent assault/homicide; second robbery conviction affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to request theft/larceny instruction | State argued counsel may have made tactical decision and defendant failed to show prejudice | Montoya argued counsel erred by not requesting lesser-included theft instruction | Court held defendant failed to prove counsel was incompetent or that omission prejudiced outcome; claim may be pursued in habeas corpus |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bernal, 146 P.3d 289 (N.M. 2006) (robbery requires force and is distinct from larceny)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (noting robbery may be improper if it both commences and concludes on a dead person, but divisible acts may sustain conviction)
- James v. State, 618 S.E.2d 133 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005) (where killing and taking are part of same transaction, robbery applies even if victim dies before completion)
- People v. Navarette, 66 P.3d 1182 (Cal. 2003) (one can effect robbery by killing and then taking property if death is part of same conduct)
- Smothers v. United States, 403 A.2d 306 (D.C. 1979) (dead person may be robbery victim when taking and death are proximate)
- State v. Coe, 208 P.2d 863 (Wash. 1949) (robbery conviction proper when taking follows an assault that began the robbery)