State v. Robles, A-1-CA-36366

Background

Defendant Phillip R. Robles was convicted by jury of kidnapping, battery against a household member, and interference with communications based on events in Aug.–Sept. 2016.
Victim Heather Trujillo made out-of-court statements to police describing break-in, physical assaults, and that Defendant held her to prevent her testifying in a magistrate hearing; she later did not appear at the district-court trial.
The State sought to admit Victim’s testimonial out-of-court statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause and Rule 11-804(B)(5) NMRA, arguing Defendant caused her unavailability with intent to prevent testimony.
The defense contested (1) that Victim was unavailable and (2) that Defendant wrongfully caused her unavailability with intent, noting elapsed time between the alleged intimidation (Aug.–Sept. 2016) and the trial (Feb. 2017) and that Victim had testified in a different proceeding in February 2017.
The district court found Victim unavailable due to Defendant’s conduct; this Court reviewed whether the forfeiture exception applied and whether evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Victim was "unavailable" and her testimonial statements were admissible under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception	State: Victim was absent despite reasonable process; her out-of-court statements are admissible because D’s threats, assaults, confinement, and jail calls caused her unavailability with intent to prevent testimony	Robles: Victim’s absence was not caused by him — there was a months-long gap after the alleged misconduct, Victim testified in another case, and the State may have caused her nonappearance	Affirmed: Court upheld district court’s finding that Victim was unavailable and that Defendant’s prior threats, violence, confinement, and subsequent jail calls demonstrated wrongful conduct with intent to prevent testimony, so forfeiture applies
Whether the elapsed time between misconduct and trial defeats application of forfeiture doctrine	State: Pattern of threats/violence and continued contact shows intent and causal link despite lapse	Robles: Lack of contact in the five months before trial and interim testimony in another case break causal chain	Rejected: Court found no authority that lapse of time negates prior pattern of intimidation; affirmed forfeiture finding
Whether alternative causes for Victim’s absence (e.g., State conduct) negate Defendant’s culpability for unavailability	State: Additional factors do not negate defendant’s prior wrongful conduct and intent	Robles: The State’s actions contributed to Victim’s failure to appear, so forfeiture should not apply	Rejected: Court held existence of other possible causes does not undo defendant’s wrongful causation absent authority or clearer showing
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions (on or about Sept. 1, 2016)	State: Evidence of assaults and confinement across Aug. 23, Aug. 27, and Sept. 1 supports convictions on or about Sept. 1, 2016	Robles: State failed to prove the offenses occurred on or about Sept. 1, 2016 as charged	Rejected: Jury instruction permitted "on or about" date; evidence across dates was sufficient and jury credibility determinations control

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause prohibits testimonial hearsay unless exception applies)
State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 98 P.3d 699 (N.M. 2004) (sets elements for forfeiture-by-wrongdoing under state law)
State v. Casares, 318 P.3d 200 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (court will not consider issues unsupported by authority)
State v. Aragon, 981 P.2d 1211 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (presumption of correctness for district court rulings)