State v. Antonio M.
| Decision Date | 17 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1-CA-39709 |
| Citation | 516 P.3d 193 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO M., Child-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, Meryl E. Francolini, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
Harrison & Hart, LLC, Nicholas T. Hart, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
{1} Following an adjudicatory hearing, a jury found Antonio M. (Child or A.M.) committed felony murder, attempt to commit armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, child abuse, and aggravated assault by the use of a deadly weapon. On appeal, Child argues (1) the State failed to bring him to an adjudicatory hearing in a timely manner; (2) the witness identifications of Child during the adjudicatory hearing were unnecessarily suggestive; (3) the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence regarding "rumors" that Child and two others planned to rob Fabian Lopez (Victim); (4) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain Child's delinquency adjudications; and (5) the cumulative impact of these errors warrant the reversal of his delinquency adjudications.
{2} We hold that the delays before the adjudicatory hearing did not require the district court to dismiss the petition and do not require this Court to vacate Child's delinquency adjudications. Nevertheless, because we conclude that the in-court identifications were impermissibly suggestive, we reverse and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing. We address Child's remaining arguments to the extent necessary to avoid error in retrial and to ensure that retrial does not violate double jeopardy protections.
{3} On the night of August 4, 2020, Victim drove with his girlfriend (Girlfriend) and their infant son to Frenger Park in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Victim parked his vehicle at Frenger Park, and not long after, a young man walked up to the driver's side of the car and asked Victim if he could get in. After getting into the front passenger seat of Victim's car, the young man, later identified as M.M., was heard counting and apologizing to Victim. M.M. then stepped out of the vehicle, took out a gun, and pointed it at Victim, telling him, "Give me what you got." Victim held his hands up and responded to M.M., While pointing a gun at Victim, two other young males walked up to the driver's side of the vehicle and also pointed guns at Victim. M.M. shot and killed Victim as he sat in the driver's seat with his hands up.
{4} The medical investigator determined that Victim died from a gunshot wound to the chest that entered his body from the right side and exited on his left side.
{5} Child, along with two other individuals, M.M. and A.C., were later arrested and charged with the robbery and killing of Victim.
{6} On August 17, 2020, the State filed a delinquency petition against Child, alleging that he committed first degree felony murder for his involvement in the robbery and killing of Victim. On August 19, 2020, the district court ordered that Child be detained pending further proceedings. The original date for Child's adjudicatory hearing was set for September 18, 2020.
{7} On September 4, 2020, the State filed a motion to continue Child's adjudicatory hearing for sixty days. The State asserted that the lead investigator on the case, who would provide crucial testimony to the State's case, would be unavailable for the original setting. The State also cited a pending autopsy report and a social media warrant as additional reasons to continue the hearing. Child opposed the State's motion; however, the district court granted the motion to continue and rescheduled Child's adjudicatory hearing for October 16, 2020.
{8} The State filed an amended delinquency petition on September 9, 2020, alleging Child committed five additional delinquent acts, including armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, abuse of a child, and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
{9} On September 29, 2020, the State filed a second motion to continue Child's adjudicatory hearing for thirty days, because the autopsy report from the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator (OMI), a material piece of the State's case, was still pending. Additionally, the State noted general societal delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as another reason to continue Child's hearing. The district court again granted the State's motion over the objection of Child and rescheduled the adjudicatory hearing for November 13, 2020.
{10} On November 2, 2020, the State filed its third motion to continue Child's adjudication for thirty days, explaining the COVID-19 pandemic "has caused [e]xceptional [c]ircumstances ... out of the State's control" and requesting live testimony that was, at the time, restricted due to COVID-19 infection concerns. Child again opposed the motion; however, the district court granted the State's motion to continue citing "[e]xceptional [c]ircumstances caused by the current COVID-19 [p]andemic that would jeopardize the health of all parties involved," and extended the deadline to hold Child's adjudicatory hearing to December 13, 2020.
{11} On November 13, 2020, our Supreme Court issued Order No. 20-8500-039,1 which suspended all in-person civil and criminal trials set to begin on or after November 16, 2020, until at least January 1, 2021. Consequently, the district court informed the parties via e-mail on November 24, 2020, that it had sua sponte vacated the December trial date. However, the district court did not enter an order extending the time limit to hold Child's adjudicatory hearing and the State did not file another motion asking the district court to do so. On November 29, 2020, Child filed a motion seeking release from detention based on the State's failure to bring him to an adjudicatory hearing within thirty days. The district court denied the motion following a hearing on December 10, 2020.
{12} On January 3, 2021, Child filed a motion to dismiss the petition with prejudice. Child alleged that the State had failed to comply with the Children's Court rules of procedure and that "the failure to hold an adjudicatory hearing within the designated time limits required a dismissal with prejudice."2 Specifically, Child argued that Rule 10-243(A) NMRA requires that an adjudicatory hearing be held within thirty days, and that any extensions of this deadline cannot, according to Rule 10-243(D), exceed ninety days absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. Child also asserted that under Rule 10-243(E), a motion to extend time limits must be filed no later than ten days after the deadline has passed, and the State failed to file such a motion before ten days after the December 13, 2020 deadline. The State opposed the motion, citing the Supreme Court's order suspending jury trials through January 2021, and the district court's e-mail sua sponte vacating Child's hearing, arguing that the e-mail removed the necessity for the State to file a motion to continue. In its response, the State also requested the court enter an order for an extension of time nunc pro tunc, to the date the adjudicatory hearing was vacated.
{13} The district court denied both of Child's motions. The court referenced Supreme Court Order No. 20-8500-039, noting it "imposed strict limitations on all in-person judicial proceedings" and suspended all jury trials until January 1, 2021. The court clarified that it vacated Child's adjudicatory hearing on November 23, 2020, "to comply with the Supreme Court order, as well as with the [s]tate public health order and the Judiciary's Emergency Court Protocols." The district court also noted that Last, the district court granted nunc pro tunc the extension of the deadline to hold Child's hearing from December 13, 2020 to February 26, 2021. Ultimately, Child's adjudicatory hearing was set for February 22, 2021.
{14} Girlfriend provided further details regarding the night Victim was killed. She testified that while the two males were right outside the driver's side window, she was screaming that there was a baby in the vehicle. One of the young males was holding a small compact revolver and the other was holding what looked like a rifle. Girlfriend was unable to see the faces of the males on the driver's side of the car, but she was able to generally describe them. The male that was holding the rifle was "medium in weight," "medium complected," and was 5 feet 5 inches or 5 feet 6 inches in height. The male who was holding the handgun was described as "skinny," "medium tan," "probably the same height as the one on the passenger's side," and he had "dreadlocks." After two shots were fired at Victim, the first from the driver's side and the second from the passenger's side, the three males waited a couple of seconds and then ran off.
{15} Another witness, M.A., was at Frenger Park on the night of August 4, 2020. M.A. testified that she was sitting in her pickup truck when she saw two young males, one who was wearing a red hoodie, jump a fence near the park and pass "a long object" to one another before walking away. Approximately thirty minutes later, she saw a small vehicle pull up and park behind her, and the same two young males from earlier reappeared and approached the vehicle. After they reached the vehicle, it appeared that they were arguing with the occupants of the vehicle, and M.A. testified that it was then that one of the males pulled out a gun and pointed it at the driver. She saw the gun, drove off, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial