State v. Romero, S-1-SC-35780

On July 30, 2011, Mark Romero and Freddie Silva entered Genevieve Jaramillo’s apartment; Romero held a gun to occupants and handcuffed the victim (Francisco Landovazo).
Romero drove the handcuffed victim to a remote area (El Llanito), beat him with a bat, retrieved a rope, and strangled him until he stopped moving; the victim was later found hogtied and bound.
Silva testified Romero strangled the victim; autopsy confirmed death by strangulation and four-point restraint.
Evidence connected Romero and accomplices to disposal of the body (trunk lining missing, security footage, cell‑phone location evidence).
Romero was convicted of false imprisonment, felony murder (predicated on first‑degree kidnapping), and kidnapping; the trial court later vacated the separate kidnapping conviction to avoid double jeopardy with felony murder.

Issue	State's Argument	Romero's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for false imprisonment of Jaramillo	Testimony and observations (gun to head, dragged by hair, shouting, victims not free to leave) show restraint and lack of lawful authority	Insufficient — argued others (Silva) did the imprisoning	Affirmed: jurors could find Romero restrained Jaramillo and knew he lacked authority to do so
Sufficiency of evidence for felony murder (kidnapping predicate) — causation & intent	Evidence shows forcible taking/transport (handcuffing, ordering into truck), killing during commission, and intent/knowledge (planning, procuring rope, prolonged strangulation, bragging)	Argued State failed to prove Romero personally killed or had requisite intent	Affirmed: evidence supported kidnapping predicate, causation, and mens rea (knowledge of strong probability of death / deliberate killing)
Trial court abuse of discretion in direct exam of Dennis Chavez (leading questions; reading prior statement)	Court permitted leading questions and use of prior statement to impeach because Chavez appeared hostile, fearful, and repeatedly could not remember or contradicted himself	Argued court erred permitting leading questions and allowing prior statement/readback	Affirmed: within discretion—leading permitted to develop hostile/uncooperative witness; prior inconsistent statement admissible for impeachment/refreshing recollection

State v. Frazier, 142 N.M. 120, 164 P.3d 1 (N.M. 2007) (predicate offense is subsumed into felony murder for double jeopardy)
State v. Largo, 278 P.3d 532 (N.M. 2012) (standard for sufficiency review: resolve conflicts for State; affirm jury fact‑finding)
State v. Marquez, 376 P.3d 815 (N.M. 2016) (elements required for felony murder)
State v. Harrison, 564 P.2d 1321 (N.M. 1977) (causation for felony murder—acts of defendant or accomplice leading to homicide)
State v. Ortega, 817 P.2d 1196 (N.M. 1991) (felony murder limited to intentional killings; mens rea equivalent to second‑degree murder for felony murder)
State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (jury may reject defendant’s version; contrary evidence does not mandate reversal)
State v. Dominguez, 171 P.3d 750 (N.M. 2007) (admissibility of prior inconsistent statements for impeachment without strict formalities)
State v. Orona, 589 P.2d 1041 (N.M. 1979) (leading questions may be proper on direct examination for immature, timid, or frightened witnesses)