State v. Platero, 406 P.3d 557

December 14, 2010: a single-vehicle rollover on NM Hwy 47 left Amber Smith dead; no eyewitnesses to the crash. Officers found Smith ejected from the vehicle and followed footprints to Cody Platero.
Platero was injured, smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, and later told officers Smith had been driving and they were going to the desert; blood on the driver’s side matched Platero’s DNA; toxicology showed 0.06 BAC and methamphetamine.
January 2012: grand jury indicted Platero on two counts of vehicular homicide (DWI or reckless driving), possession of a controlled substance, and leaving the scene.
On the eve of trial (2015) Platero moved to exclude lay testimony on cause of death/accident because the State had no expert witnesses or OMI/autopsy report; the State conceded it would not call experts and had no eyewitness to the crash.
The district court dismissed the vehicular homicide counts and the drug-possession count pretrial, finding the State could not prove cause of death or accident without expert testimony and thus could not meet its burden; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an expert is required, as a matter of law, before the State may present evidence to establish corpus delicti (cause of death/accident) in a vehicular homicide prosecution	State: No blanket requirement for expert testimony; circumstantial and lay evidence can establish corpus delicti and allow the State to proceed to trial	Platero: Without expert testimony or eyewitnesses, the State’s proof of who was driving and that the crash caused death is purely speculative and insufficient; court should dismiss pretrial	Court: Reversed dismissal — expert testimony is not required as a matter of law; circumstantial and lay evidence alleged was sufficient to proceed to trial; district court improperly weighed sufficiency of evidence pretrial

State v. LaPietra, 147 N.M. 569, 226 P.3d 668 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (discusses limits on district court’s authority to resolve factual disputes pretrial under Rule 5-601)
State v. Pacheco, 388 P.3d 307 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017) (frames inquiry whether undisputed facts show the State cannot prove elements at trial)
State v. Brown, 100 N.M. 726, 676 P.2d 253 (N.M. 1984) (circumstantial/lay evidence may suffice to show death resulted from defendant’s acts)
State v. Bell, 90 N.M. 134, 560 P.2d 925 (N.M. 1977) (great bodily harm need not be proved exclusively by medical testimony)
State v. Maestas, 92 N.M. 135, 584 P.2d 182 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (corpus delicti may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence)
State v. Coyle, 39 N.M. 151, 42 P.2d 770 (N.M. 1935) (cause of death may be established without an autopsy)
State v. Munoz, 336 P.3d 424 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (compilation of vehicular homicide decisions relying on eyewitness or reconstruction evidence; does not create a per se expert requirement)
State v. Bregar, 390 P.3d 212 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017) (upholding inference about driver identity from vehicle/seat position)