State v. Cabezuela

Decision Date31 October 2011
Docket NumberNo. 32,000.,32,000.
Citation150 N.M. 654,2011 -NMSC- 041,265 P.3d 705
PartiesSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Adriana CABEZUELA, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jacqueline L. Cooper, Acting Chief Public Defender, Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

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

OPINION

MAES, Justice.

{1} Adriana Cabezuela (Defendant) directly appeals her conviction for intentional child abuse resulting in the death of her eight-month-old-daughter, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30–6–1(H) (2005), alleging that (1) the jury was improperly instructed as to the elements of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of a child under the age of twelve; (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant intentionally abused her child; (3) the testimony of the supervising pathologist regarding the baby's autopsy violated the Confrontation Clause; and (4) the prosecutor engaged in multiple incidents of prosecutorial misconduct. We conclude that (1) the jury was improperly instructed as to the elements of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of a child under the age of twelve, and (2) double jeopardy does not bar retrial because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. We reverse Defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial. Because the claims of prosecutorial misconduct were not preserved and we remand for a new trial, we do not address that claim.

{2} Although our determination of the jury instruction claim is dispositive of Defendant's appeal, to provide guidance to the trial court on remand, we address Defendant's Confrontation Clause claim. See State v. Juan, 2010–NMSC–041, ¶ 20, 148 N.M. 747, 242 P.3d 314.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{3} We begin with a summary of events based on DVD video recordings of Defendant's three police interviews. At Defendant's trial, the police interviews were entered into evidence and played for the jury. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary to address Defendant's claims on appeal.

{4} Defendant was the mother of six children. In June 2007, Defendant's three youngest children, including eight-month-old Mariana Barraza (Baby Mariana), resided with Defendant in a small, one-bedroom rental home. Defendant's boyfriend, Leonardo Samaniego, Jr. (Boyfriend), had recently moved into Defendant's home.

{5} On June 14, 2007, shortly after midnight, Baby Mariana was rushed to the emergency room after she stopped breathing. The emergency room nurse asked a police officer, who was at the medical center with another suspect, to look at Baby Mariana's body, which was covered in bruises and bite marks. At 3:46 a.m., Baby Mariana was pronounced dead.

{6} A short time after their arrival at the hospital, a Hobbs police officer transported Defendant and Boyfriend to the Hobbs police station. During Defendant's initial police interview, she eventually agreed with the detective that due to the stress of caring for three small children she had lost her temper with Baby Mariana. Defendant admitted that a few weeks earlier she bit Baby Mariana on the leg and cheek. She also admitted that on a separate occasion she shook Baby Mariana to the point of bruising. When asked about the day of the incident, June 13, 2007, Defendant recalled that while she was at her storage shed with Baby Mariana lying in a baby carrier, she hit Baby Mariana on the head with an open hand and shook the baby carrier.

{7} On the night of Baby Mariana's death, Defendant admitted that she “pitched” Baby Mariana to the floor from the height of about one foot. She then picked Baby Mariana up “real quick” without supporting her head. As she “jerked” Baby Mariana up from the floor, Baby Mariana gasped and stopped crying. Defendant stated to the detective, “I would never hurt my babies.” Defendant insisted that Boyfriend had never hurt her children.

{8} At the end of the first interview, detectives informed Defendant that Baby Mariana had died. Defendant requested that she tell Boyfriend of Baby Mariana's death. Without the detectives present, but as the DVD continued to record, Boyfriend entered Defendant's interrogation room. Boyfriend looked toward the camera before he turned to Defendant in tears. After Defendant informed Boyfriend of Baby Mariana's death, she whispered to him, “I put the blame on myself that I bit her ... that I threw her.” Defendant was arrested at the police station and charged with child abuse resulting in the death of a child.

{9} A Hobbs police detective interviewed Defendant a second time the following day. Defendant again stated that she was not covering for Boyfriend and he had never been abusive toward her or her children.

{10} Almost two years later, and three days before the trial was scheduled to start, Defendant requested a third police interview. Defendant revealed that Boyfriend was responsible for Baby Mariana's injuries, and she did not implicate Boyfriend earlier because he had previously threatened her and her children.

{11} Defendant additionally gave a different account of the day of the incident. Defendant explained that while she was at her storage shed getting clothes for her children, Defendant heard Baby Mariana cry from the car where Boyfriend was watching the children. When Defendant returned to the car, she noticed a bruise on Baby Mariana's forehead and a cut above her left eye. Defendant did not question Boyfriend about Baby Mariana's injuries because he was already frustrated,” and she was “scared ... of him.”

{12} Defendant also gave a different account of the night of Baby Mariana's death. She told the detective that all three children began to fuss in the middle of the night and both Defendant and Boyfriend went into the children's bedroom. Defendant stated that as she stood between the playpen and the crib, Boyfriend picked up Baby Mariana and left the room. Defendant then “heard just a thump,” but thought Boyfriend had kicked the door as he walked from the room with Baby Mariana. Boyfriend then told Defendant to turn on the lights because Baby Mariana was not breathing.

{13} Unable to revive Baby Mariana, Defendant, Boyfriend, and the children went down the street to Boyfriend's father's home to call an ambulance because Defendant's house did not have a phone. The police and the ambulance arrived shortly thereafter, and Baby Mariana was rushed to the hospital. Defendant and Boyfriend were initially at the hospital with Baby Mariana, but were then transported to the police station. While in the police car Boyfriend told Defendant, “You know what you have to say. Don't let them twist it around.”

{14} Defendant stated that Boyfriend threatened her regularly, saying if she ever went outside the house he would kill her and if she “disrespect[ed] him she was “gonna get it.” Defendant also claimed that Boyfriend had abused her three younger children. Defendant said that Boyfriend had bitten Baby Mariana more than once because he was “anxious,” and that he had shaken her.

{15} The jury found Defendant guilty of intentional child abuse resulting in Baby Mariana's death. In accordance with NMSA 1978, Section 31–18–15(A)(1) (2005), Defendant received a life sentence followed by five years of parole. Defendant appeals her conviction pursuant to Rule 12–102(A)(1) NMRA and Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution, which provide for direct appeal from the trial court when a sentence of death or life imprisonment has been imposed. See State v. Trujillo, 2002–NMSC–005, ¶ 8, 131 N.M. 709, 42 P.3d 814.

II. DISCUSSIONA. The jury instructions do not accurately reflect the statutes and case law.

{16} The State charged Defendant with “Abandonment or Abuse of a Child Resulting in Death.” The criminal information described the offense as “knowingly, intentionally, and without justification, caus[ing] Mariana Isabelle Barraza, a child under 12 years of age, to be placed in a situation that may [have] endanger[ed] the child's life or health, resulting in Marian[a] Isabelle [Barraza's] death, contrary to [NMSA 1978, Sections 30–6–1(D)(1) and 30–6–1(H) ].”

{17} This Court has adopted Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions that set out the elements for intentional child abuse. UJI 14–602 NMRA (“Child abuse; intentional act or negligently ‘caused’; great bodily harm; essential elements.”). The General Use Note for Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions provides, in part:

Except for grand jury proceedings, when a uniform instruction is provided for the elements of a crime, a defense or a general explanatory instruction on evidence or trial procedure, the uniform instruction must be used without substantive modification or substitution. In no event may an elements instruction be altered or an instruction given on a subject which a use note directs that no instruction be given. For any other matter, if the court determines that a uniform instruction must be altered, the reasons for the alteration must be stated in the record.

{18} Following the language set forth in UJI 14–602 and UJI 14–610 NMRA, the trial court issued an elements instruction (Instruction No. 3) and an instruction defining “intentionally” (Instruction No. 4).

INSTRUCTION NO. 3

For you to find Adriana Cabezuela guilty of child abuse resulting in death, the State must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime:

1. Adriana Cabezuela caused Mariana Barraza to be placed in a situation which endangered the life or health of Mariana Barraza;

2. The defendant acted intentionally;

3. Adriana Cabezuela's actions or failure to act resulted in the death of Mariana Barraza;

4. Mariana Barraza was under the age of 18.

5. This happened in New Mexico on or about the 14th day of June, 2007.

INSTRUCTION NO. 4

A person acts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
92 cases
  • State v. Thomas
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 20 Junio 2016
    ... ... State v. Cabezuela , 2011NMSC041, 47, 150 N.M. 654, 265 P.3d 705. On remand, Defendant is entitled to an acquittal on a charge if the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. State v. Consaul , 2014NMSC030, 41, 332 P.3d 850. {37} In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we ... ...
  • State v. Garcia
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 23 Mayo 2019
    ... ... See State v. Consaul , 2014-NMSC-030, 41, 332 P.3d 850 ("To avoid any double jeopardy concerns, we review the evidence presented at the first trial to determine whether it was sufficient to warrant a second trial."); State v. Cabezuela , 2011-NMSC-041, 40, 150 N.M. 654, 265 P.3d 705 ("If we find that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support a conviction, then retrial is not barred." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We therefore consider whether each of Defendants convictions is supported by ... ...
  • State v. Tollardo
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 29 Marzo 2012
    ... ... Claimed violations of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation are reviewed de novo. State v. Cabezuela, 2011NMSC041, 49, 150 N.M. 654, 265 P.3d 705. Under the Sixth Amendment, every criminal defendant shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI. [T]his bedrock procedural guarantee applies [275 P.3d 115] to both federal and state prosecutions ... ...
  • State v. Marquez
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 2016
    ... ... Zumwalt's testimony where he was present and supervising during the autopsy and where he had personal knowledge of how the autopsy was conducted. {41} We generally review Confrontation Clause claims de novo. State v. Cabezuela , 2011NMSC041, 49, 150 N.M. 654, 265 P.3d 705. Under the Confrontation Clause, an out-of-court statement that is both testimonial and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted may not be admitted unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to ... ...
  • 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