State v. Vigil, 489 P.3d 974

Defendant Frankie Vigil (separated husband) was charged with: (1) use of a telephone to terrorize/intimidate/threaten/harass/annoy/offend (NMSA §30-20-12(A)); and (2) bribery/intimidation of a witness (NMSA §30-24-3(A)(2)).
December 1, 2016: after Vigil allegedly broke Victim’s car windshield and police left her home, Victim received two voicemails threatening her; she identified the voicemail number as Vigil’s and identified the voice as his.
January 30, 2017: Victim received a blocked call threatening harm if she testified the next day in a magistrate court proceeding against Vigil; she again identified the caller’s voice as Vigil’s and nevertheless appeared and testified on January 31.
Sergeant Rascon recorded the December voicemails from Victim’s phone onto his body cam; recordings were played at trial over Vigil’s foundation/authentication objection (not challenged on appeal).
Jury convicted Vigil on both counts (covering Dec. 1, 2016 through Jan. 30, 2017). On appeal Vigil argued: (1) insufficient evidence to identify him as caller; (2) double jeopardy from multiple punishments for same conduct; and (3) due process violation from appellate delay. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of identification evidence	State: Victim’s positive voice ID, recognition of Vigil’s cell number, timing/contents of calls tied to windshield incident, and body‑cam corroboration suffice.	Vigil: State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the caller.	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to identify Vigil as caller for both Dec. 1 voicemails and Jan. 30 call.
Double jeopardy (single course of conduct)	State: Two distinct events (Dec. 1 voicemails; Jan. 30 witness‑intimidation call) could support separate convictions; legislative intent permits separate punishment.	Vigil: Convictions punish the same conduct (threats/intimidation) and thus violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.	Affirmed — conduct was not unitary (events separated in time/character); Foster presumption rebutted under Sena; no double jeopardy.
Due process — appellate delay	State: Delay produced no cognizable prejudice to Vigil’s appellate rights or defense on retrial/resentencing.	Vigil: Delayed appeal violated due process; he unnecessarily languished in prison.	Affirmed — defendant failed to show prejudice to appellate or retrial rights; no due process violation.

State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (N.M. 2015) (articulates sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard)
State v. Romero, 435 P.3d 1231 (N.M. 2019) (voice identification and corroborating circumstantial evidence)
State v. Sena, 470 P.3d 227 (N.M. 2020) (clarifies Foster presumption and unitary‑conduct analysis)
State v. Foster, 974 P.2d 140 (N.M. 1999) (Foster presumption regarding jury instructions and alternative bases)
Swafford v. State, 810 P.2d 1223 (N.M. 1991) (double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments for same offense)
State v. Garcia, 450 P.3d 418 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019) (due‑process analysis for appellate delay)