Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder on July 22, 1997. 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. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. As the Defendant himself concedes, [w]hen allowed to speak freely, Juan clearly testified that Charlie shot Javier and then Silly shot at him and Jesus. Rule 11-611(C) NMRA 2002 states: Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness's testimony. In State v. Orona, 92 N.M. 450, 454, 589 P.2d 1041, 1045 (1979), the Court concluded that, under Rule 11-611(C), [d]eveloping testimony by the use of leading questions must be distinguished from substituting the words of the prosecutor for the testimony of the witness. The Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in such a manner as to violate principles of fundamental fairness after it permitted every word describing the alleged offense to come from the prosecuting attorney rather than from the witness. He Was Born to Cathy Trujiilo and Anthony Suazo, Raised by his Grandparents in the small town Taos, New Mexico, USA. Memorial ID. However, during cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Detective Shawn about Ortega's alleged statement to Landaras, specifically attacking his failure to follow-up on this information known by one of his detectives, Detective Martinez. In that case, we ultimately allowed the admission of Ortiz's out-of-court statement under Rule 11-803(X), not on the merits, but because the defendant in that case did not argue against the use of that rule. $3895 . {21} Under these circumstances, we find that the taped statement and transcript were reliable and important for the jury to consider, as it went to the identity of the shooters. See Sutphin, 107 N.M. at 131, 753 P.2d at 1319. Viewing the prosecutor's statements in the context of the individual facts and circumstances of this case, however, we do not find that they had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury's verdict that Defendant was deprived of a fair trial. {24} Depraved-mind murder is the killing of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse, by any of the means with which death may be caused by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind regardless of human life. Section 30-2-1(A)(3). Inmates personal profiles, inmates legal profiles and inmate resumes. Q. However, both Ortega and Ortiz indicated that one of the two men shot first at Mendez and then the other immediately shot at Ortega and Canas. Moreover, Defendant did not demonstrate that had his counsel moved for a continuance until Canas could be located, the motion would have been granted. {31} Ortega testified at trial that he and fellow Juaritos Maravilla gang members were asked what they were doing in the Barelas barrio by people standing on a second-floor apartment balcony. First, Ortiz's fear of retaliation went to his credibility, by showing that he had valid reasons-including the safety and well-being of himself and his family-for being less than candid about his cousin's and Defendant's involvement in the shooting at trial. 2. Although this description might help the police find the alleged perpetrators, I do not believe we ought to characterize it as a statement of identification under Rule 11-801(D)(1)(c), because in it Ortiz did not match any current suspect to the people he witnessed at the crime scene. It seems clear from the record that defense counsel did interview Ortega, as indicated by the trial judge's statement: In reference to the interview, that I'm not so much concerned about because that was conducted out of the presence of the jury and the interview, at least with Mr. Ortega, happened. We find nothing in the record to indicate that defense counsel did not avail himself of this opportunity. at 89, 390 P.2d at 967. . 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). Id. cemeteries found within miles of your location will be saved to your . {26} Defendant does not dispute that the act of shooting from the second floor balcony into a group of people was an act greatly dangerous to the lives of others. online Voody Load 2022 Page 3. It did not, however, satisfy the requirements of any of those exceptions. Defendant asserts that the prosecutor's failure to disclose material evidence to the defense, improper use of leading questions, improper introduction of hearsay evidence, use of inflammatory and irrelevant evidence, and improper argument, distorted the evidence on the crucial issue of identification. Q. {2} Pursuant to Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA 2002, Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) the admission of the tape and transcript of Joseph Ortiz's out-of-court statement violated Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation and due process because it was inadmissible impeachment and hearsay evidence; (2) his conviction for first-degree depraved-mind murder violated due process of law because sufficient evidence did not support the conviction on any theory; (3) Defendant was convicted of a crime that does not exist-conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder; (4) there was no evidence that Defendant shot at a dwelling or occupied building; (5) Defendant's trial counsel's performance constituted ineffective assistance of counsel; (6) the prosecutor's acts of misconduct distorted the evidence on the issue of identification, depriving Defendant of due process and a fair trial; (7) the conspiracy charges and Defendant's convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because there is no evidence of any agreement or agreements to support separate charges; (8) the above constitute cumulative error that denied Defendant due process and a fair trial; and (9) Defendant's sentence is disproportionate and in violation of the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Defendant in this case was sentenced to thirty years of imprisonment, with the judge explicitly providing that he be eligible for good time credit. I publish daily videos playing Slots in casinos all over the country, showing millions of fans how to have a great time using an entertainment budget! 2023 a case was filed by Lucero Chris, in the jurisdiction of Bernalillo County. We affirm Defendant's convictions for first-degree depraved-mind murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery. 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. . {56} We agree that Detective Shawn's statements regarding Canas' identification of Defendant was improper hearsay testimony. We find that such evidence was inextricably part of the State's case. Are you getting ready to buy a new car? {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. But what Detective Shawn found was consistent. Because none of the other rules upon which the State relied appear to be applicable, I would reverse the convictions of depraved mind murder, aggravated assault, and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery, and remand for a new trial on these counts. {35} Shooting at a dwelling or occupied building consists of willfully discharging a firearm at a dwelling or occupied building. Section 30-3-8(A) (emphasis added). I'm networking with professionals in the fields of Digital Strategy, Marketing, and Web Development. {9} We conclude that serious youthful offenders convicted of first-degree murder shall be allowed to invoke this Court's mandatory appellate jurisdiction under Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution and Rule 12-102(A)(1). He was raised with his fourteen siblings in what was always an entertaining and loving environment. The dissent notes that the statement lacks circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness because Detective Shawn, the person in the best position to gauge the candor of the out of court statement felt that Ortiz was lying to him. Chris J Trujillo 's Record in 2020 Name The State of New Mexico has additional required charges for Cremation Permit, Office of the Medical Investigator fee, death certificates and sales tax. Learn more about merges. Thus, we do not address Defendant's double jeopardy argument. Previously, Chris was a Park Manager at Broward County, Florida. {85} Finally, Rule 11-801(D)(1)(c) (statements of identification) would not allow the statements to come in because Ortiz's interview did not identify either of the two shooters but instead described the shooting. However, this argument does not adequately take into account the fact that Ortiz did not have to implicate his cousin at all. Under those circumstances, I am not persuaded that the reasons for the principle of deference apply. Chris was a hard worker and established his company "All American Towing" in 2017. Accordingly, we vacate Defendant's conviction and accompanying nine-year concurrent prison sentence for this crime. 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. c***@lanl.gov. 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.) Email. Della Gonzales also testified that she heard the noise of the bullets from a nearby apartment but that she did not hear the noise of bullets striking a surface or building. We hold that sufficient evidence exists to affirm Defendant's conviction of first-degree depraved-mind murder on either a principal or accessory liability theory. The prosecutor sought to show that Ortiz was aligned with the Barelas, not the Juaritos Maravilla gang. Chris, you will be greatly missed by all of us.All American Towing will live on, your sons will carry the chains from here so fly high with the Angels until we meet again! The trial judge denied both motions and made the following finding: First of all, I don't think very many jurors heard it. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. According to our new study, State of Contact Center Conversation Intelligence 2022, 48% . {45} Defendant also argues that defense counsel failed to object to prejudicial hearsay statements and elicited highly prejudicial evidence against his own client. Attended New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA in (1998-2000). The NPI number of Chris Trujillo is 1578830162 and was assigned on November 2011. {75} It is true that Ortiz's statement did implicate his own cousin, and one could reason that Ortiz would not implicate a family member with a statement unless he believed it to be true. He was born and raised in Bernal, N.M., to Ted Trujillo and LuAnna Bustamante. I do not think that Rule 11-803(X) allows the admission of his statement because the elements of that rule are not met, because the trial court did not seem to rely on that rule in its decision, and because the use of Rule 11-803(X) in this context seems contrary to its purpose. The United States Supreme Court has held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. [T]o establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must point to specific lapses by trial counsel. State v. Brazeal, 109 N.M. 752, 757, 790 P.2d 1033, 1038 (Ct.App.1990). However, this conviction has been vacated, and Defendant has not demonstrated that had he timely challenged this indictment he would have been acquitted of his other convictions. Second, the statement was more probative of the identity of the shooters than any other evidence the State could procure through reasonable efforts-in Ortiz's taped statement he indicated that there was a big guy wearing black jeans and a black t-shirt, presumably Allison, and a little guy wearing light blue jeans and a striped shirt, presumably Defendant, on the balcony and that the little guy did the shooting. While we agree that the rule cannot be used to supply the missing elements to admit evidence which almost, but not quite, meets the requirements of another specific exception, it can be used to admit out-of-court statements that otherwise bear indicia of trustworthiness equivalent to those other specific exceptions. The only question for the jury was who was responsible for the bullets that struck and killed him. Such deference, however, has less force in this case, where it is less than clear from the record that the trial court relied upon Rule 11-803(X) in its ruling. {87} I would reverse the trial court's determination that Ortiz's hearsay statement was admissible and reverse Defendant's convictions. Also known as: christopher.trujillo.961 Taco Bell Brighton High School Christopher currently lives in Brighton, CO. Christopher works at Taco Bell. "Watching your passion for students and your support of one another has been a privilege and an honor," wrote Trujillo, in this open letter to . View Christopher Trujillo's profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Implicit in the standard of materiality is the notion that the significance of any particular bit of evidence can only be determined by comparison to the rest. Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to establish elements one and three beyond a reasonable doubt-that Defendant intended for Allison to shoot and kill Mendez and that Defendant helped or encouraged him to do it. We find sufficient evidence to support Defendant's one conviction for conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and affirm this conviction. Christopher Trujillo in New Mexico 283 people named Christopher Trujillo found in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and 6 other cities. In this case the person in the best position to gauge the candor of the out of court statement was Detective Shawn, who alone observed Ortiz's demeanor at the time of the interview. {39} Defendant claims that the following flaws in defense counsel's performance resulted in ineffective assistance: counsel was unprepared to start trial, he failed to review jury questionnaires prior to jury selection, he failed to complete his interview with Ortega, he failed to interview, secure the presence of, or secure a continuance until such time as Canas could be located, he failed to object to prejudicial hearsay statements, he elicited highly prejudicial evidence against his own client, and he failed to challenge an indictment for a nonexistent crime. {16} The trial court found the statement admissible under Rule 11-803(X), and we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion by admitting Ortiz's statement under this Rule. {48} We next address Defendant's argument that the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct that deprived him of a fair trial. Furthermore, Ortiz was present and available for cross-examination, which meant the jury could observe his demeanor and make its own determinations regarding Ortiz's credibility. (emphasis omitted). {15} As a general rule, the [a]dmission of evidence is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court, and rulings of the trial judge will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.2 State v. Worley, 100 N.M. 720, 723, 676 P.2d 247, 250 (1984); see also Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, 10, 128 N.M. 410, 993 P.2d 727; State v. Torres, 1998-NMSC-052,15, 126 N.M. 477, 971 P.2d 1267; State v. Stout, 96 N.M. 29, 32, 627 P.2d 871, 874 (1981). Detective Shawn's frustration that Ortiz was hiding the identity of the shooters is understandable. Defendant asserts that, as a result, the admissibility of this evidence should be reviewed de novo rather than for an abuse of discretion. However, [a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment. Id. However, [e]vidence is material under Brady only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. State v. Baca, 115 N.M. 536, 541, 854 P.2d 363, 368 (Ct.App.1993) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 2001) (Although there was initially some debate about the meaning of this phrase, [not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions,] the majority of circuits have concluded that the phrase means only that, if a statement is admissible under one of the hearsay exceptions, that exception should be relied on instead of the residual exception. Defendant's reliance on these cases is misplaced. Despite Defendant's objections, the court admitted the evidence pursuant to Rules 11-803(E), 11-803(X), 11-804(A)(3), and 11-612 NMRA 2002. The dissent argues that our analysis under Rule 11-803(X) is misplaced because this exception cannot be read to mean that hearsay which almost, but not quite, fits another specific exception, may be admitted under the other exceptions' subsection Dissent 82 (quoting State v. Barela, 97 N.M. 723, 726, 643 P.2d 287, 290 (Ct.App.1982)). In New Mexico, [w]hoever commits murder in the first degree is guilty of a capital felony. Section 30-2-1. {62} Conspiracy is a specific intent crime. The jury had testimony from two other eyewitnesses, Ortiz and Ortega, that support its findings of guilt. Followed by a rosary at 7pm at Santa Rita Church in Bernal, NM. VI, 2. Defense counsel was apparently not timely informed that they had been brought in and, therefore, did not have an opportunity to interview them at that time. {32} Defendant is liable for the crime of first-degree depraved-mind murder whether or not he fired the fatal shot. {61} Defendant next asserts that the multiple conspiracy charges and convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause where there was no evidence of any agreement, let alone separate agreements to support separate charges. Lucky was born in Pojoaque, New Mexico on August 12, 1943 to Luis Trujillo and Andalecia Archibeque. See Garcia, 114 N.M. at 274, 837 P.2d at 867. at 560, 874 P.2d at 21 (quoting State v. Taylor, 103 N.M. 189, 197, 704 P.2d 443, 451 (Ct.App.1985)). Defense counsel told the court that he was not aware that Ortega and Canas had been arrested on material witness warrants until some time after the two had been arrested, but that he and the prosecutor did conduct an interview with Ortega which eventually broke down due to animosity between the lawyers. He earned his wings too soon on May 4, 2021. {6} Detective Doug Shawn, the officer assigned to the case, testified that he interviewed several eyewitnesses to the shooting, all of whom identified Defendant as one of the shooters and indicated that only one gun had been used. {27} Defendant's reliance on Hernandez is misplaced. Christopher Trujillo in New Mexico 283 people named Christopher Trujillo found in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and 6 other cities. 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. The email address cannot be subscribed. 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. He claims that the testimony came out during defense counsel's examination of Detective Shawn, during which defense counsel asked Shawn an open-ended question about one of his interviews. See State v. Nieto, 2000-NMSC-031, 25, 129 N.M. 688, 12 P.3d 442 (finding expert testimony on defendant's gang affiliation and specific rituals and procedures of that gang was admissible to show defendant's alleged motive). Email. If we were to adopt the dissent's reading of this rule, we would deprive the jury of reliable probative evidence relevant to the jury's truth-seeking role. Chris Trujillo is a provider established in Albuquerque, New Mexico and his medical specialization is Pharmacist. In those cases the defendants were not challenging their sentences as violations of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, but rather were claiming that their sentences were illegal as not authorized under the applicable statute. Accordingly, we hold that serious youthful offenders convicted of first-degree murder shall be allowed to invoke this Court's mandatory jurisdiction under Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution and Rule 12-102(A)(1). Leave a sympathy message to the family in the guestbook on this memorial page of . Refine Your Search Results All Filters 1 Christopher A Trujillo, 50 Resides in Albuquerque, NM Lived In Rio Rancho NM, Ponderosa NM 20 plus years experiencce in design and project management of architectural projects, including residential, retail, hospitality, healthcare, entertainment and places of worship. Thus, I concur in parts II, III(A), V, and VI. At that point the trial court allowed the witness to be led, and the direct examination continued with the prosecutor graphically describing sexual acts of defendant by way of leading questions, to each of which the witness gave a simple answer of yes. Id. 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]. 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.