The court indicated that as to the identity of the shooter, Defendant was not prejudiced because Canas could have testified that the shooter was bald, but at the same time he may have elicited information that that bald person's name was Silly [Defendant's alias]. State v. Ross, 1996-NMSC-031, 122 N.M. 15, 20, 919 P.2d 1080, 1085. In contrast to his earlier jazz and funk inspired playing, Osbourne's band was more straightforward to hard rock and metal. If the acts of two or more persons contribute to cause death, each such act is a cause of death. When a defendant has been convicted of a capital felony, he shall be punished by life imprisonment or death. Section 31-18-14(A). {5} Ortega testified that someone on the balcony asked the four men what they were doing in the Barelas neighborhood and that Mendez responded, We could be anywhere we want, Juaritos. Immediately thereafter shots were fired down at them from the balcony. During the prosecution's direct examination of Detective Shawn, the prosecutor elicited testimony that indicated he had interviewed three eyewitnesses to the shooting: Ortega, Ortiz, and Canas. While it is unclear from the transcript what the exact grounds for the trial court's ruling were, it is clear that Rule 11-803(X) did not play a significant role in the deliberations. In that interview Ortiz stated that he did not recognize the shooters but described them as a little guy wearing light blue jeans and a striped shirt, presumably Defendant, and a big guy wearing black jeans and a black t-shirt, presumably Allison. Chris Trujillo The Starcourt food court featured a quintessential selection of '80s eateries, including Burger King, Great Panda, Orange Julius, Hot Sam and New York Pizza. 11/21/2022 11:53 PM. There is sufficient evidence to support findings that (1) Allison committed an act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, (2) knowing that the act created a risk of death or great bodily harm, which indicated a depraved-mind, without regard for the lives of others, (3) that Defendant helped him commit that act, and (4) that Defendant shared Allison's purpose or design. Ortiz, however, did have a motive to shift the blame for the fatal shot from his cousin to Defendant, assuming-as I think we can-that Ortiz was aware that eyewitnesses put both his cousin and Defendant on the balcony, and assuming familial loyalty to his cousin. Click a location below to find Christopher more easily. Moreover, Defendant did not demonstrate that had his counsel moved for a continuance until Canas could be located, the motion would have been granted. {47} We consider the entire proceeding as a whole and judge any claim of ineffectiveness on whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. State v. Richardson, 114 N.M. 725, 727, 845 P.2d 819, 821 (Ct.App.1992) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. In fourteen pages of transcript discussion, the trial court only once mentions Rule 11-803(X) and it certainly cannot be said to be the thrust of the State's argument. Date added: 1/11/2012. Thus, jurisdiction in this case is proper and we review Defendant's appeal on the merits. View Verna T. Background Search . Accordingly, we respectfully disagree with the dissent's reasoning on this point. Defendant alleges that the leading questions asked by the prosecutor dominated the questioning of Ortega and were not merely an attempt to lay a foundation or cojole a hostile or timid witness. See Martinez v. State, 108 N.M. 382, 383, 772 P.2d 1305, 1306 (1989). Christopher Sam Trujillo. {40} Defendant first argues that even the State in this case acknowledged from the outset that his counsel was ineffective, stating: What you have here is ineffectiveness of counsel crusading as someone who wants to disqualify me from participation in this case. Defense counsel also argued that the issue about baldness and shortness and so forth could have been used to the defendant's advantage as to who was actually doing the shooting. However, in addition to arguing that portions of Canas' statement were exculpatory, defense counsel acknowledged that portions of his statement were inculpatory. Domestic space is described as a place of safety, security, and . {50} Defendant first argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose material evidence to the defense. NORFOLK, Va. - The Old Dominion baseball team finished off a three-game sweep of the Fordham Rams on Sunday with a doubleheader win taking game one 11-3 and game two 19-1 on Sunday afternoon at the Bud Metheny Ballpark. Defendant asserts that, as a result, the admissibility of this evidence should be reviewed de novo rather than for an abuse of discretion. It is evident from the record that the trial judge recognized that the defense attorney had not completed his interviews at that point and made some arrangement for him to complete them prior to opening statements. Search Inmate Profiles (MOST POPULAR) RESET. On November 13, 1997, this Court filed its opinion in Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, 51, 124 N.M. 333, 950 P.2d 776, holding that conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder is not a cognizable crime in New Mexico. We will review the memorials and decide if they should be merged. However, under the statute, juvenile offenders convicted of first-degree murder may be sentenced to life imprisonment but shall not be punished by death. Id. The court must then determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. On the other hand, both facts also argue that the statement he gave was less than candid. {59} Defendant next claims that the prosecutor improperly injected his own opinion during closing arguments on the definition of at for shooting at a dwelling or occupied building charges. {41} Defendant next argues that his trial counsel failed to review jury questionnaires prior to jury selection. {4} Ortiz, Allison's cousin, was a former Barelas gang member who had been ranked out and was apparently no longer welcome in the area. See State v. Sanchez, 112 N.M. 59, 65, 811 P.2d 92, 98 (Ct.App.1991) (In ruling upon the admissibility of the statement the trial court does not determine the ultimate questions of the declarant's credibility; instead, this is the province of the jury); see also UJI 14-5020 NMRA 2002. In view of my disposition of part III(B), I would not reach the ineffective assistance of counsel and cumulative error claims found in parts VII and X. Christopher John Trujillo was born on March 30, 1991. We also note that in a recent opinion this Court unanimously concluded that the district court, under the same exact facts, did not abuse its discretion by admitting Ortiz's prior statement under Rule 11-803(X). Ortega unequivocally testified that Defendant and Allison were the shooters, and the jury was given the opportunity to consider Ortiz's prior statement to that effect. Thus, I concur in parts II, III(A), V, and VI. This Court has recognized four primary dangers of hearsay which can potentially make a hearsay statement unreliable. It makes little sense to allow adults convicted of first-degree murder to appeal directly to this Court, but to force juveniles convicted of the same crime to first appeal to the Court of Appeals. Because we consider improperly admitted evidence when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, State v. Post, 109 N.M. 177, 181, 783 P.2d 487, 491 (Ct.App.1989), I agree that there is sufficient evidence supporting the conviction of depraved mind murder as a principal or as an accessory. This pay is 25 percent lower than average and 12 percent lower than median salary in Northern New Mexico . Click a location below to find Christopher more easily. Accordingly, we conclude that a thirty year sentence with the opportunity for good time was authorized by statute and not constitutionally disproportionate to the crimes involved. Add new skills with these courses The evidence at trial revealed that shots were fired from an apartment balcony downward into a courtyard area. He took pride in everything he did and everything he did was for his sons. Dissent 75-78. "I called him right after the vote that we legalized cannabis in New Mexico," Trujillo told the Santa Fe New Mexican about the March 31 conversation with her son, who is now in his second. The essence of the dissent's argument on this point is that while one could reason that Ortiz would not have implicated a family member unless he believed it to be true, equally one could reason that he had a motive to shift the blame from his cousin to Defendant because of familial loyalty, fear of retaliation, and his presumed belief that his cousin would be less culpable. Second, Ortiz's ranking out of the Barelas gang offered a plausible explanation for the start of the quarrel; his former comrades objected to Ortiz showing back up at the scene of his disgrace. {46} Finally, Defendant argues that defense counsel's failure to challenge the indictment for conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder, a non-existent crime, constituted per se ineffectiveness. We are unpersuaded by Defendant's arguments and find that there was sufficient evidence at trial to convict Defendant of first-degree depraved-mind murder. On the night of the shooting, Ortega identified Defendant as one of the shooters from a photo array shown to him by Detective Shawn. On May 25 By Jovita Trujillo -Los Angeles March 03, 2023 11:14 PM EST Michael Douglas is sharing insight into his activities on the golf course with his wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones. Christopher Trujillo - Technical Coordinator - Region 9 Education Cooperative | LinkedIn Christopher Trujillo State of New Mexico - Region 9 Education Cooperative Technical Coordinator. {20} Turning to the other three criteria required by the Rule, first, the statement was offered as evidence of a material fact-the identity of the shooters. The fact that Ortiz most likely would view his cousin as being less culpable had he not fired the fatal shots significantly diminishes any circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness based on the notion that people do not implicate family members unless believing it to be true. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The dissent cites to no authority to support its conclusion that less deference is due when the trial court admits evidence under a rule that it did not principally rely on, and without some contrary authority, we believe we are obligated to review the trial court's ruling under the well-established abuse of discretion standard. Counsel's failure to ask Ortega about this alleged inconsistent identification could have been a rational trial strategy. As a preliminary matter, we must first consider the question of whether Defendant preserved the confrontation issue for appellate review. Id. Certainly counsel's failure to challenge this indictment prejudiced Defendant as to his conviction for this crime. From the onset of New Mexico jurisprudence, first-degree murder convictions have been appealed directly to this Court, and even after the creation of the Court of Appeals, this Court retained this crucial area of jurisdiction. Defendant's case did not go to trial until November 9, 1998, leaving counsel nearly a year to challenge the indictment for this crime. {49} When an issue of prosecutorial misconduct is properly preserved by a timely objection at trial, we review the trial court's ruling on this issue under the deferential abuse of discretion standard because the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the significance of any alleged prosecutorial errors. State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, 46, 126 N.M. 132, 967 P.2d 807. {71} Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and cruel and unusual punishment arising from his sentence could arise on remand, so I agree these questions ought to be reached; additionally, I agree with the majority's disposition on the merits. Familial loyalty and fear of retaliation would seem to argue more forcefully against a truthful statement; at the very least they do not provide circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. This Constitutional provision is buttressed by Rule 12-102(A)(1) and NMSA 1978, 34-5-8(A)(3) (1983) which reiterate this limitation to our jurisdiction. Section 34-5-8(A)(3) indicates that the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over criminal actions, except those in which a judgment of the district court imposes a sentence of death or life imprisonment. (Emphasis added.) She is passionate about finding creative solutions to unconventional problems.<br><br>Carolina thrives in a highly dynamic work environment, by being adaptable and leveraging her technical and managerial skills. We review each of Defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel individually in addition to considering their cumulative effect. See 5 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinsteins's Federal Evidence 807.03[4], at 807-26 (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. He was born and raised in Bernal, New Mexico to Ted Trujillo and LuAnna Bustamante. {38} Defendant has the burden of showing ineffective assistance of counsel. Email. Judge Victor S. Lopez presiding. When he just-when like-they just started shooting when he said, Juaritos. When he said, I could be anywhere I want, Juaritos, they just started shooting. The State initially proffered the out of court statements under Rule 11-803(E) NMRA 2002. We found Elaine Trujillo from El Prado New Mexico. Because of our disposition of Defendant's convictions for conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder and conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building, the only remaining conspiracy conviction is conspiracy to commit aggravated battery. Sisters, Alpha Quill and Robert Tixer . Chris Trujillo has been working as a Program Analyst at Los Alamos National laboratory for . So I'm going to leave it alone. He asserts that there was no evidence from any witness that any of the shots were directed at any building or that any bullets hit a building. Ortega testified that the shots were first directed at Mendez, and then at himself and Canas. {3} On July 3, 1997, Defendant and Charlie Allison were outside on a second-floor apartment balcony in the Barelas neighborhood of Albuquerque when they became involved in an argument with four men located at ground level: Joseph Ortiz, Juan Ortega, Jesus Canas, and Javier Mendez. {78} Both familial loyalty and fear of retaliation could lead to an inference that Ortiz would not have made the statement to the police unless he believed it to be true. In order to find the Defendant guilty, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant willfully shot a firearm at a dwelling or an occupied building. An autopsy report shows Gustavo Surez, a 21-year-old American, was shot 12 times after he failed to stop while being chased by Mexican soldiers, who opened fired after he crashed. ; see also State v. Lankford, 92 N.M. 1, 2, 582 P.2d 378, 379 (1978). Pound was taken to the hospital and removed from. {34} Defendant next argues that his convictions for all counts relating to shooting at a dwelling or occupied building must be reversed because there was no evidence that Defendant shot at a dwelling or occupied building. BLOG; CATEGORIES. {1} Defendant Chris Trujillo was convicted of first-degree depraved-mind murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree depraved-mind murder, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit aggravated battery, conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (great bodily harm), conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (resulting in injury), shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (no injury), and conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (no injury).1 The jury found Defendant not guilty of aggravated battery, aggravated assault, shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (great bodily injury), and shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (resulting in injury). Although we did not have an extensive analysis on this issue and we noted that the defendant did not persuade us otherwise, we recognized that the district court found that the circumstances of the original statement, the proximity in time to the shooting itself, all are indicia of reliability in that statement. Id. The jury had before it evidence from two other eyewitnesses that identified Defendant as one of the shooters. It could have gone either way, and again, the prejudice to the defendant, I just don't see it. We agree that viewed in the context of the entire record, there is nothing to indicate that had the July booking photograph been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. On the stand Ortiz stated that he could not recall the particular details of the crime. Because causation was at issue here, the jury was also instructed that: The cause of death is an act which, in a natural and continuous chain of events, produces the death and without which the death would not have occurred. Dec. 20, 2020: An open letter to my school family. She told him that she was going to be back in a few. Counsel may not have had as much time to review the jury questionnaires as he would have liked, but the record indicates that he in fact conducted a thoughtful voir dire in which he engaged in an active discussion with the panel. Moreover, in his opening statement, the defense attorney was completely forthright about Defendant's gang affiliation, stating that there is no question that Chris Trujillo is a gang member. Defense counsel went on to say that nobody in this room is going to think that Mr. Allison or Mr. Trujillo is a Boy Scout We certainly can't avoid the issue that this involves gangs, something about drugs, certainly some violence. Defense counsel also spoke of a spectrum of gang involvement, trying to demonstrate to the jury that while Defendant was not a Boy Scout, he was also not a gang member for profit, for criminal acts, for death, destruction, drug dealing, [or] intimidation. Although we recognize the danger of guilt by association when evidence of gang membership is introduced, such evidence is admissible to show other important elements of the crime, such as motive or intent. Christine Trujillo ( Democratic Party) is a member of the New Mexico House of Representatives, representing District 25. {12} Defendant first argues that the admission of the tape and transcript of Ortiz's out-of-court statement violated his right to confront the witness against him under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, and under Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution. . See e.g., Gonzales, 113 N.M. at 230, 824 P.2d at 1032 (finding that in order to prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant had to first demonstrate that had his counsel moved for severance, the motion would have been granted). Detective Shawn testified that Ortiz identified Defendant from a photo lineup as one of the shooters, but refused to have his response recorded on tape. {22} Defendant next argues that insufficient evidence supports his conviction for first-degree depraved-mind murder on either a principal or accessory liability theory. We conclude that Defendant's gang membership was undisputed by the defense and that the State used evidence of gangs to the extent that it was relevant to its case. Either out of fear of gang retaliation or out of familial loyalty to Allison, Ortiz had every motive to be less than candid with the police. Shortly after the shots were fired, Ortiz ran after Mendez and found him lying face down in the alley. The trial court also provided that [i]t is this Court's intention that the Defendant be eligible for good time credit as to the sentence imposed. (Emphasis omitted.)