State v. Salas, 34,146

Background

Lorenzo Salas was convicted by a jury of battery on a peace officer after an incident at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center in 2011 where Corrections Officer Kavin Woodard testified Salas head-butted him during cell transfer.
Surveillance cameras covered the booking area but not the cells; any relevant footage would have been automatically deleted after six months and was never requested or preserved.
At sentencing the State sought habitual-offender enhancement under NMSA 1978, § 31-18-17; at the first habitual-offender hearing the district court found the State’s proof of identity for prior felonies insufficient and declined enhancement.
The State later obtained a second habitual-offender hearing; the district court then found Salas a habitual offender and enhanced his sentence. Salas appealed, and the State cross-appealed (later abandoned).
On appeal Salas raised trial errors (lost evidence, witness tampering, juror misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, shotgun jury instruction, sufficiency of evidence), due-process claims about the probation-revocation and sentencing hearings, double jeopardy, ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficiency of the proof of identity for prior convictions.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects, rejecting Salas’s claims and holding retrial of habitual-offender status was permissible under controlling Supreme Court precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Salas)	Held
Lost/destroyed evidence (surveillance)	Investigation complied with procedures; no bad-faith failure to preserve	Failure to collect potentially exculpatory surveillance warranted dismissal	Denied dismissal; failure was at most negligent and cross-examination cured prejudice
Witness tampering (Rule 11-615)	Any issue could be remedied by cross-examination and court discretion	Mistrial required because witness read another witness’s report	Denied mistrial; court allowed cross-examination and remedial measures
Prosecutorial vouching / improper closing arguments	Curative instruction and judge’s rulings sufficed	Comments constituted vouching requiring mistrial	Denied mistrial; court gave curative instruction and comments did not warrant reversal
Shotgun jury/coercion by time limit	Court’s brief time reminder was logistical, not coercive	Jury instruction/time limit coerced holdouts	No fundamental error; no coercion under Rickerson factors
Sufficiency — peace officer element	Evidence (Woodard’s testimony) sufficient to show peace-officer status	Insufficient evidence that Woodard qualified as peace officer	Guilty verdict supported by substantial evidence
Probation-revocation due process (drug test protocol)	State complied with Sanchez notice requirements	Lack of Sanchez-compliant lab disclosure violated due process	No preserved error; no fundamental unfairness shown
Double jeopardy / retrial of habitual-offender status	Habitual-offender proceedings may be retried; Monge controls	Retrial barred after court found identity proof insufficient at first hearing	Retrial allowed; Monge/Lockhart foreclose double-jeopardy bar to retrying sentencing deficiencies
Sufficiency of identity for prior felonies at second hearing	Introduced certified fingerprint cards and judgments proving identity	First hearing’s insufficiency meant retrial barred or evidence insufficient	Evidence at retrial was substantial; district court properly found three qualifying priors
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to concurrent scheduling	Scheduling did not prejudice defendant	Counsel erred by not objecting to concurrent probation/sentencing hearings	Claim failed for lack of shown prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (where evidence admitted at trial would have supported conviction, Double Jeopardy does not bar retrial of sentencing status)
Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) (insufficient proof at sentencing does not bar retrial; sentencing rulings lack the finality of acquittals)
Koonsman v. State, 116 N.M. 112, 860 P.2d 754 (N.M. 1993) (indicates a retrial may be barred where identity was already litigated and the state failed to prove identity)
State v. Ware, 118 N.M. 319, 881 P.2d 679 (N.M. 1994) (test for when failure to gather evidence that was never collected warrants sanctions: materiality then bad faith)
State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (remedies for witness-exclusion violations are discretionary and include cross-examination, curative instructions, contempt, and striking testimony)