State v. Saiz
2017 NMCA 72
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Undercover Officer Waylon Rains and a confidential informant (CI) negotiated with Bobby Saiz to buy four ounces of methamphetamine for $4,800; Saiz was alleged to be the middleman arranging delivery by a third person, "Gilbert."
- Over two weeks Saiz arranged several meeting plans; on the day in question parties met at Saiz’s house, then drove to a trailer park where Saiz knocked on a residence and made multiple phone calls while pacing and negotiating logistics.
- A suspicious white Ford truck drove slowly by; a short time later officers stopped a truck nearby but found no drugs and no one named Gilbert.
- While returning to a store, Saiz’s phone (set to read incoming texts aloud) spoke a message: "You better not be fing me over, prim." Rains testified that "prim" meant "primo" (cousin), implying the message was from Gilbert.
- Rains had the team arrest Saiz in the store parking lot for conspiracy to commit trafficking by distribution; the jury convicted Saiz. Saiz appealed on sufficiency and hearsay grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Saiz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether modified trustworthiness/corpus delicti corroboration applies to pre-crime and course-of-crime statements | The modified trustworthiness rule does not apply to statements made prior to or during the crime; such statements need not be corroborated | Saiz: his extrajudicial statements must be corroborated under New Mexico’s modified trustworthiness rule to prove the crime occurred | The court adopted the majority rule: corroboration requirement does not apply to pre-crime or in-course-of-crime statements; Saiz’s statements could be used substantively |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict of conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine | Saiz’s statements, his conduct (phone calls, pacing, negotiating), the suspicious truck, and the voice text together support an agreement with a co-conspirator | Lack of drugs, no money exchanged, no identified or produced co-conspirator, and alternative theory that Saiz was "gaming" the CI/agent | Viewing evidence in favor of the verdict, the court held the evidence—direct statements plus circumstantial acts—was legally sufficient to prove conspiracy |
| Whether the voice text was inadmissible hearsay or required co-conspirator foundational proof before admission | The text was admissible (and could be treated as a co-conspirator statement) and was probative to show involvement/communications with Gilbert | The foundation was inadequate; the text was hearsay and should have been excluded or required independent proof of a conspiracy before admission | Court held the voice text was not hearsay as admitted because it was not offered for the truth of an asserted fact but to show it was made and its effect on Saiz; admission was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether an undercover officer can serve as a conspirator to prove agreement | — | Saiz’s arrangement with undercover officer could not themselves create a conspiracy conviction without a non-government co-conspirator | Court reiterated that an agreement with a government agent alone cannot support conspiracy; here the jury could infer a non-government co-conspirator ("Gilbert") from the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (trustworthiness doctrine for confessions)
- Warszower v. United States, 312 U.S. 342 (pre-crime statements lack the unreliability of post-crime confessions)
- State v. Weisser, 141 N.M. 93 (New Mexico’s modified trustworthiness/corpus delicti discussion)
- State v. Bregar, 390 P.3d 212 (recognized as addressing corpus delicti in New Mexico)
- State v. Gallegos, 149 N.M. 704 (conspiracy complete upon agreement; inchoate nature)
- United States v. Hoheb, 777 F.2d 138 (extension of Warszower to statements during the crime)
- United States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521 (agreement with a government agent alone cannot establish conspiracy)