State Of N.M. v. Riley

Citation147 N.M. 557,226 P.3d 656,2010 NMSC 005
Decision Date19 January 2010
Docket NumberNo. 29,992.,29
PartiesSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.William RILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender, William A. O'Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

Gary K. King, Attorney General, Nicole Beder, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

SERNA, Justice.

{1} Pursuant to Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA, William Riley (Defendant) is before this Court on direct appeal from his convictions for first degree murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, tampering with evidence, and shooting at or from a motor vehicle. He argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for first degree murder. Defendant also makes the following arguments: (1) the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to strike the jury pool; (2) he was prevented from fully cross-examining an accuser against him; (3) the convictions for both first degree murder and shooting at or from a motor vehicle constituted double jeopardy; and (4) portions of his sentence were unconstitutionally enhanced under NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-15.1 (1979) (amended 1993). We affirm Defendant's convictions and affirm the district court's denial of Defendant's motions for a new trial. We agree that portions of Defendant's sentence were unconstitutionally enhanced and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the aggravated portions of his sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

{2} On June 25, 2004, Defendant shot his friend, Shawn Pitts (Victim) multiple times while Victim was inside a car in Defendant's driveway. Victim later died from his wounds. Defendant and Erica Moten had been in a relationship for five to six years and had two children together. They lived in a house together in Clovis until Moten ended the relationship about one and a half months prior to the murder. After the relationship ended, Defendant moved into his own apartment and made attempts to reconcile with Moten. Two or three weeks before the murder, Moten began to date Victim. Moten and Victim kept their relationship a secret because Victim did not want to ruin his friendship with Defendant. Victim was also dating Moten's close friend, Ray Shaun Parsons, who Moten considered to be her sister and who had the same grandmother, Anne Parsons (Grandmother).

{3} About three weeks before the murder, Defendant had a lengthy conversation with Grandmother about his relationship with Moten and how he wanted to reconcile with her so that he, Moten, and their children could be a family again. Grandmother was aware that Moten and Victim were “seeing” each other, but she did not inform Defendant because she was concerned how Defendant would react if he knew. She testified that “hell might break loose” if Defendant caught the two of them together. Defendant informed Grandmother that Parsons was “messing around” with Victim and that he was concerned that Victim was mistreating her. Grandmother testified that Defendant was depressed because he was not able to reconcile with Moten and maintain his family. Grandmother characterized the relationship between Defendant and Moten as obsessive and encouraged Defendant to get counseling. Grandmother also encouraged Defendant to move back to his family in California for a while so that he could reflect on what went wrong with his relationship and to think about his daughters. Defendant moved back to California.

{4} While in California, Defendant made a phone call to Grandmother's house in an attempt to contact Moten and spoke with Grandmother. Defendant informed Grandmother that he was returning to Clovis and told her, “I didn't take care of things before I left there and I've just got to come back and I'll just get everything done I need to do and then I'm going to just go on back to California and maybe things will work out for us later.” A day or two before the murder, Defendant called Moten from a bus stop in Arizona and told her that he was returning to Clovis. Then the night before the murder, Defendant broke into Moten's house and wrote her a letter, dated Thursday, 11:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m., and left it for her in the house. In the letter, Defendant expressed his desire to reconcile with Moten and to have a family and stated, “You [are] the world in my life, I want to be back in your arms, I want to love you and my God given children, you guys are my [oxygen] with out you I [can't] breath[e].” Defendant also stated in the letter,

But I came back to Clovis and I had to flat out dis [that] bitch, I [don't] want my sister in law to be acting like that [though] because she is a smart and decent girl and if a bitch even get out of line with her (Shawn) I might snap and [lose] it! !!”

{5} The following day, Victim's friend, Chris Aultman, drove Victim from Parsons' house to the daycare at which Parsons and Moten worked to retrieve keys to Parsons' home. Aultman remained in the car while Victim retrieved the keys and looked up to see Defendant and Victim talking in front of the daycare. Defendant and Victim began to argue about Moten. Defendant told Victim, “Let's go talk at my house.” The two then started walking towards Defendant's apartment, with Aultman driving along beside them. When the three men reached Defendant's apartment, Defendant and Victim continued arguing and were “in each other's face,” and Aultman exited his car and attempted to separate them. After they were separated, Defendant called Victim a “bitch” and Victim called Defendant a “coward.” At that point, Aultman and Victim got into the car and Defendant went into his apartment. About five to ten seconds later, Defendant ran out of his apartment with a gun in his hand, yelling, “I'll kill you. I'll kill you” and began shooting at the car. Aultman had seen the gun that Defendant wielded in Defendant's possession prior to the murder. In all, Defendant fired at Victim five or six times. As Defendant was shooting, Aultman saw Victim's chest bleeding. Aultman got out of the car and began to run away, and Defendant ran towards the daycare with the gun in his hand. Defendant ran down an alley, jumped the fence to the daycare and went inside the building. Once inside, Defendant took off his shirt and threw it behind a refrigerator. Defendant then left the daycare and proceeded to run up the road in a frantic manner where he was eventually detained by police. Meanwhile, back at Defendant's apartment, Aultman returned to the car to check on Victim. When Aultman got into the car, Victim grabbed his arm and said, “I can't believe he shot me.” Aultman then drove Victim to the hospital where Victim later died.

{6} Police found a black .45 caliber revolver underneath a workbench in the backyard of the daycare, which was later identified as the gun Defendant used in the shooting. Police also recovered .45 caliber bullets from Defendant's drawer in his apartment. Five bullets were accounted for in the crime scene investigation, although only four were recovered, which was consistent with the number of casings found in the revolver. A firearm and ballistics expert concluded that the five cartridges and the four bullets were all fired from the same gun.

{7} Police recovered Defendant's shirt from behind chairs or boxes that were next to a refrigerator in the daycare. Police collected clothing and DNA samples from Defendant. Upon examination, the shirt collected from Defendant as well as his left hand appeared to contain blood stains. Also, one of the T-shirts tested contained the DNA of both Defendant and Victim. Police conducted a gunshot residue test of Defendant and while the test was being conducted, Defendant stated that he had shot a firearm a couple of days before. Also, Defendant's shoe and a shoe print found at the daycare were consistent in terms of physical shape, size, and tread design.

{8} After conducting a crime scene recreation, a crime unit investigator concluded that Victim was shot while in the passenger seat of the car. Based on the evidence found at the scene, the investigator concluded that Victim was initially in the passenger seat, then he started to turn towards the driver side of the car, exited the car from the driver side, ran away from the car, and then returned to the car before being driven to the hospital. The investigator also opined as to the sequence of the shots: the first shot struck the hood of the car and was shot from the entrance of Defendant's apartment, which was about 38 feet away; the second shot struck and shattered the window on the passenger side of the car; the third shot most likely struck Victim, traveled through his clothing, and struck the steering column; the fourth shot struck Victim in the upper torso; and the fifth shot struck Victim in the buttocks.

{9} An autopsy of Victim's body revealed Victim sustained three gunshot wounds: on the left shoulder, on the left chest area, and on the right buttocks. The medical investigator concluded that the second shot-which struck and broke Victim's breastbone, traveled through the right or left lung, and exited from the right side of Victim's body-was a fatal wound. The medical investigator was able to determine that the distance between the barrel of the gun and Victim's body was within two to three inches of Victim's body for the left shoulder wound, within three to four inches for the chest wound, and within a foot and a half for the buttocks wound. A combination of gunshot wounds was the cause of Victim's death.

{10} Defendant was charged with first degree murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, tampering with evidence, and shooting at or from a motor vehicle.1 A jury found Defendant guilty on all charges and Defendant appealed to this Court.

II. DISCUSSIONA. Sufficiency of the Evidence

{11} Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence of deliberate murder to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 cases
  • State v. Gutierrez
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • May 24, 2011
    .......         [258 P.3d 1030] Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender, J.K. Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.Gary K. King, Attorney General, Farhan Khan, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee. OPINION CHÁVEZ, Justice. ...Riley, 2010–NMSC–005, ¶¶ 33–35, 147 N.M. 557, 226 P.3d 656, it does us no good to act tentatively in this instance. For all practical purposes, ......
  • State v. Swick
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • June 1, 2012
    .......         [279 P.3d 750] Jacqueline Cooper, Chief Public Defender, Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner. Gary K. King, Attorney General, Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent. OPINION CHÁVEZ, Justice. ...State v. Riley, 2010–NMSC–005, ¶ 34, 147 N.M. 557, 226 P.3d 656 (quoting State v. Pieri, 2009–NMSC–019, ¶ 21, 146 N.M. 155, 207 P.3d 1132). “[W]hen ......
  • Dominguez v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • April 16, 2015
    ......April 16, 2015. 348 P.3d 185 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender, Kimberly M. Chavez Cook, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner. Hector Balderas, Attorney General, Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent. OPINION CHÁVEZ, ...221, 824 P.2d 1023, Dominguez, 2005–NMSC–001, 137 N.M. 1, 106 P.3d 563, and State v. Riley, 2010–NMSC–005, 147 N.M. 557, 226 P.3d 656 ), with Forbes, 2005–NMSC–027, ¶ 13, 138 N.M. 264, 119 P.3d 144 (“Our decision is .. ......
  • State v. Slade
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • August 1, 2014
    ......34,764. .         [331 P.3d 931] Gary K. King, Attorney General, Yvonne M. Chicoine, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee. Templeman and Crutchfield, C. Barry Crutchfield, Lovington, NM, for Appellant. OPINION BUSTAMANTE, Judge.         {1} ... See, e.g., State v. Riley, 2010–NMSC–005, ¶ 20, 147 N.M. 557, 226 P.3d 656 (deliberate intent supported where the defendant “first shot from about thirty-eight feet ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT