State v. Urioste, 1 N.M. Ct. App. 74

Background

Victim was last seen January 28, 2007; Victim and his brother helped grandmother move and Victim planned to attend a barbecue.
Victim was later found burned; five .9 mm casings were found near Victim’s head.
Victim died of three gunshot wounds (chest and two head shots); one recovered bullet matched .9 mm Luger and casings.
Neal, a South Side gang member, cooperated and related Defendant’s statements about shooting Victim and burning him and the Lincoln.
Rubio, another gang member, corroborated Defendant’s statements about abducting Victim, forcing him to drink gas, shooting him, and burning him.
Lincoln Town Car was found burned; trials included evidence placing the killings in or near the vehicle and on the mesa.
Defendant was charged with voluntary manslaughter, aggravated battery, three tampering with evidence counts, and two conspiracy-to-tamper counts; the district court admitted gang and witness-threat evidence subject to review.
The appellate court affirmed most convictions but reversed the conspiracy-to-tamper counts due to due process concerns and remanded for sentencing adjustments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy for manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated battery	Urioste contends unitary conduct violates double jeopardy	State argues separate acts justify multiple verdicts	No double jeopardy violation; distinct acts supported multiple convictions
Tampering with evidence and conspiracy to tamper with evidence	Conspiracy counts were proper; cumulative error not shown	Conspiracy counts violated due process; no distinct offenses	Conspiracy convictions reversed due to due-process violation; tampering convictions upheld
Admission of gang affiliation and witness-threat evidence	Evidence admissible for identity and context	Prejudicial under Rule 11-403; not preserved	Admission not abused; error not preserved for review
Indictment amendment and notice	Amendment properly allowed under Rule 5-204; not prejudicial	Amendment prejudiced defense	Amendment proper; no reversible error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Quick, 146 N.M. 80, 206 P.3d 985 (2009-NMSC-015) (two-pronged Swafford test for double jeopardy; unitary vs separate conduct)
State v. Armendariz, 140 P.3d 526 (2006-NMSC-036) (Swafford framework for double jeopardy in multiple punishments)
State v. Contreras, 141 P.3d 725 (2007-NMCA-045) (discusses unitary vs distinct conduct analysis)
State v. Lopez, 143 N.M. 274, 175 P.3d 942 (2008-NMCA-002) (distinctness indicators for separate offenses)
State v. Mireles, 136 N.M. 337, 98 P.3d 727 (2004-NMCA-100) (time/space separation to uphold separate convictions)
State v. Bernal, 140 N.M. 644, 146 P.3d 289 (2006-NMSC-050) (whether force used supports separate kidnapping and related crimes)
State v. Pisio, 119 N.M. 252, 889 P.2d 860 (1994-Ct. App.) (kidnapping restraint element; voluntary association at time of crime)
State v. Saiz, 144 N.M. 663, 191 P.3d 521 (2008-NMSC-048) (tampering multiple counts may be one offense if acts are conceptually identical)
State v. DeGraff, 139 N.M. 211, 131 P.3d 61 (2006-NMSC-011) (multiple tampering convictions tied to single physical act may be invalid)
State v. Dominguez, 143 N.M. 549, 178 P.3d 834 (2008-NMCA-029) (due process notice/defense rights in pleading and consolidation)
State v. Caldwell, 143 N.M. 792, 182 P.3d 775 (2008-NMCA-049) (due process limits on charging and consolidation)
State v. Handa, 897 P.2d 225 (1995-NM Ct. App.) (invited error doctrine; cannot complain of invited error)
State v. Padilla, 722 P.2d 697 (1986-NM Ct. App.) (invited error doctrine applied to admissions of vice evidence)