State v. Urioste
267 P.3d 820
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Victim was last seen January 28, 2007; Victim and Defendant in a gray Lincoln Town Car; Victim shot multiple times and later burned; Lincoln vehicle found in arson context with evidence of a gunshot and a bullet hole; Neal and Rubio provided statements implicating Defendant; district court admitted gang evidence and threatening witness testimony later challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy for kidnapping and aggravated battery alongside manslaughter | Urioste argues unitary conduct; all three relied on same fatal shot | Three convictions premised on one course of conduct | No double jeopardy; distinct acts support separate convictions. |
| Double jeopardy for voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated battery | Different acts with separate timings/locations | Conduct overlap; potential unitary act | Not violative; independent factual bases support convictions. |
| Tampering with evidence and conspiracy to tamper with evidence due process | Conspiracy charges tied to ongoing acts; adequate notice | Indictment failed to distinguish counts; prejudicial | Conspiracy convictions reversed for due process; tampering convictions upheld. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for tampering with evidence convictions | Evidence showed intent to disrupt investigation | Evidence not sufficient for multiple tampering acts | Sufficient evidence; multiple distinct tampering acts supported convictions. |
| Admission of gang affiliation and witness-threat evidence | Gang identity and threats probative of identity and credibility | Evidence improperly prejudicial; not properly preserved | No abuse of discretion; admission not reversible. |
| Indictment amendment replacing Jose Sullivan with Urioste | Amendment not prejudicial; variance not fatal; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Armendariz, 141 P.3d 526 (NMSC 2006) (two-step Swafford test for double jeopardy in multi-punishment cases)
- Swafford v. State, 810 P.2d 1223 (NM 1991) (distinction by time/space supports separate convictions)
- State v. Mireles, 136 N.M. 337, 98 P.3d 727 (NMCA 2004) (time/space distinction supports separate convictions)
- State v. Saiz, 144 N.M. 663, 191 P.3d 521 (NMSC 2008) (tampering plural counts; conceptually separate crimes)
- State v. DeGraff, 139 N.M. 211, 131 P.3d 61 (NMSC 2006) (unit of prosecution; some tampering counts may be dismissed)