State v. Sloan, 453 P.3d 401

Background:

Sloan was retried after this Court reversed his first conviction for faulty jury instructions; at second trial he was convicted of felony murder and tampering with evidence.
Evidence at trial: Sloan and two accomplices (Hoss and Duck) went to the victim’s home to obtain drugs/money; Hoss kicked in the door, Sloan (armed with a rifle) announced a task-force ruse, the kneeling victim was shot in the forehead and later died.
Sloan remained jailed and was not transported to three pretrial hearings; defense counsel waived his appearance orally (no written waivers in the record).
The three contested pretrial hearings: qualification of a blood‑spatter expert; a scheduling conference addressing a potential judicial conflict; and a hearing limiting Sloan’s sister’s testimony.
Appellate issues: (1) whether Sloan’s constitutional rights to be present and to confront witnesses were violated by his absence; (2) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (waiver of presence; failure to exclude evidence; failure to develop an intoxication/addiction defense); and (3) whether the court erred by refusing a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Sloan's Argument	Held
Right to be present at pretrial hearings (expert qualification, scheduling, sister’s testimony)	State: hearings were non‑critical legal matters; Rule 5‑612 permits absence for conferences/questions of law; counsel waived presence	Sloan: he was denied right to be present and to confront witnesses; McDuffie requires presence where testimony is taken	Court: No violation — hearings were not critical stages; expert‑qualification hearing analogous to competency hearing in Stincer; Rule 5‑612(D)(3) applied so presence not required
Confrontation Clause claim from absence at pretrial hearings	State: confrontation attaches at trial, not pretrial; Sloan could confront/cross‑examine at trial	Sloan: absence from hearings deprived him of ability to confront	Held: Claim fails — confrontation is primarily a trial right and Sloan cross‑examined the expert at trial
Ineffective assistance — counsel waived Sloan’s presence without authorization and failed to suppress/challenge evidence (expert, recording, statement)	State: counsel’s conduct fell within reasonable tactical choices; no prima facie showing of prejudice; record lacks evidence that Sloan did not authorize waiver	Sloan: counsel waived without his consent and failed to meaningfully contest admissibility or voluntariness given intoxication	Held: No prima facie ineffective assistance on the record. Waiver/authorization questions implicate privileged facts better raised in habeas. Objections to expert, recording, and statement could reflect reasonable strategy; no demonstrated prejudice
Lesser instruction — voluntary manslaughter based on provocation by accomplice	Sloan: provocation by accomplice (Hoss) and duress/addiction justified manslaughter instruction	State: provocation must come from the victim; accomplice provocation not valid	Held: Court affirmed refusal — New Mexico law requires victim be source of provocation, so no manslaughter instruction warranted

Key Cases Cited

Stincer v. United States, 482 U.S. 730 (Supreme Court) (defendant’s presence required only where it substantially contributes to fairness of proceedings)
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court) (presence required when it bears reasonably substantial relation to ability to defend)
State v. McDuffie, 106 N.M. 120 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (suppression/ evidentiary hearings may be critical when testimony bears on guilt; not per se whenever testimony is taken)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Fry, 138 N.M. 700 (N.M. 2006) (trial court gatekeeper role in qualifying blood‑spatter experts; such testimony may be admissible)
Lytle v. Jordan, 130 N.M. 198 (N.M. 2001) (application of Strickland and presumption that counsel was effective)