State v. Tollardo, 1 N.M. Ct. App. 535

Tollardo was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder (accessory), kidnapping (accessory), conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping; he was acquitted of aggravated arson (accessory) and conspiracy to commit aggravated arson.
Seven individuals were prosecuted in connection with Victim Juan Alcantar's death, including co-conspirators Gallegos, Trujillo, Elias Romero, Michelle Martinez, Jaime Romero, and Ivan Romero; Martinez testified, and Jaime and Ivan Romero pleaded guilty or no contest to conspiracy to commit second-degree murder.
Defense acknowledged Tollardo's presence at Anaya's house where Victim was held, noting Anaya, Gonzales, and Lujan were not charged in connection with the death.
The district court allowed the jury to learn that Jaime and Ivan Romero were convicted of conspiracy to commit second-degree murder, and informed the jury via judicial notice rather than live testimony.
The jury was instructed that the Romeros' convictions were facts the jury must accept as true, which occurred after the State's case and before closing arguments.
The majority reverses Tollardo's convictions and remands for a new trial, criticizing the old harmless-error framework and adopting a case-by-case approach to determine whether the Confrontation Clause violation was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting the Romeros' convictions violated the Confrontation Clause	Romeros' testimonial pleas and convictions were admitted without cross-examination.	The convictions could be used to prove conspiracy or to fill gaps in the record; curative principles may apply.	Yes; admission violated confrontation rights and was not harmless.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes confrontation right and testimonial statements)
State v. Barr, 146 N.M. 301 (N.M. 2009) (overruled Moore and rejected rigid harmless-error framework; case-by-case approach)
State v. Mendez, 148 N.M. 761 (N.M. 2010) (analyzes testimonial vs non-testimonial statements under Crawford)
State v. Urioste, 94 N.M. 767 (Ct.App. 1980) (confrontation concerns with co-defendant's conviction evidence)
State v. Johnson, 136 N.M. 348 (N.M. 2004) (harmless-error framework and deference to State's burden)