State v. Stallings, 476 P.3d 905

Background

Karen Cugnini was murdered in her home; a .22 shell casing and a water bottle with the defendant’s DNA were found at the scene; the victim’s truck and property were stolen and later linked to Stallings.
Multiple witnesses placed Stallings with the victim’s property after the killing and testified he admitted shooting a woman during a burglary; accomplices used the victim’s cards; a SWAT arrest recovered victim ID and stolen items.
Stallings repeatedly demanded replacement counsel and alternatively sought to represent himself; he fired two appointed attorneys (Clark then Kerr) and threatened Clark, prompting the court to remove Clark and later grant pro se status with Kerr as standby counsel.
The district court conducted extensive Faretta colloquies, ordered a competency evaluation (Stallings found competent), and warned him of the disadvantages of self-representation before allowing him to proceed pro se at the murder trial.
Trial proceeded with Stallings representing himself; he was convicted of first-degree murder and related felonies and sentenced to life without parole plus additional terms; he appealed raising six issues.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Stallings' Argument	Held
Right to self-representation / waiver of counsel	Court complied with Faretta; Stallings’ pro se demand (after rejecting counsel) was effectively a waiver by conduct	He did not clearly invoke Faretta and never expressly waived his right to counsel	Held: Stallings clearly and unequivocally invoked self-rep as a conditional choice; waiver by conduct valid after thorough Faretta colloquy; no error allowing pro se trial
Mistrial for juror outside communications	Incidents were minor; jurors who reported contacts were questioned and excused; no prejudice	Outside communications tainted jury and required mistrial	Held: No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial; communications did not materially affect verdict
Limits on cross-examination of witness Sandra Lundy	Court allowed broad cross-examination but excluded marginal/irrelevant jail calls	Exclusion of jail calls and limits on questioning violated confrontation/cross-examination rights	Held: Court acted within discretion to limit repetitive/irrelevant questioning; no error
Admission of methamphetamine found at arrest (Rule 404(b))	Evidence was admissible to show motive for burglary and was probative; defendant had opened door by questioning witnesses about drug use	Introducing bad-acts drug evidence was unfairly prejudicial	Held: Admission proper for motive; probative value outweighed prejudice
Sufficiency of evidence of identity	State relied on DNA, possession of victim’s truck/jewelry, admissions to others, matching firearms evidence	Evidence was circumstantial and insufficient to prove Stallings was the shooter	Held: Substantial evidence supported identity and murder conviction; verdict upheld
Cumulative error	No significant errors to accumulate	Cumulative error denied a fair trial	Held: No errors found; cumulative-error claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (indigent defendants have right to appointed counsel)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation; waiver must be knowing and intelligent)
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (U.S. 1942) (defendant may refuse appointed counsel)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (U.S. 1948) (court must ensure waiver of counsel is intelligent)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (trial judge’s duty to confirm competent, intelligent waiver)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (no right to hybrid representation; disadvantages of pro se)
State v. Garcia, 149 N.M. 185 (N.M. 2011) (New Mexico standards for invoking and waiving self-representation)
Kilgore v. Fuji Heavy Indus. Ltd., 240 P.3d 648 (N.M. 2010) (standard for mistrial/juror extraneous communications)