State v. Carson

Citation460 P.3d 54
Decision Date05 November 2019
Docket NumberNo. A-1-CA-35211,A-1-CA-35211
Parties STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wallace G. CARSON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM for Appellee.

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Nina Lalevic, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM for Appellant.

HANISEE, Chief Judge.

{1} A jury convicted Defendant Wallace G. Carson of two counts of human trafficking, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-52-1(A)(1) (2008), one count of human trafficking of a minor, pursuant to Section 30-52-1(A)(2), two counts of promoting prostitution, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-4 (1981), two counts of accepting earnings of a prostitute, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-4.1 (1981), and kidnapping, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-4-1 (2003). On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the district court erred in admitting testimony regarding Defendant’s uncharged acts in Texas; (2) his convictions for two counts of human trafficking related to the same victim violate double jeopardy; (3) the State presented insufficient evidence to support his kidnapping conviction; and (4) the district court failed to instruct the jury on the knowledge requirement for human trafficking of a minor. With the exception of one count of human trafficking, which we reverse on double jeopardy grounds, we affirm.


{2} Defendant’s trial focused upon events that took place in Texas and New Mexico at different times. As such, we set forth the relevant factual background concerning incidents in each state separately.

A. Texas Incidents

{3} A woman by the name of Jordann D., also known as Stormy (Stormy), met Defendant while working at a strip club in San Antonio, Texas in October 2011. Defendant introduced himself as "D.G." and told Stormy it stood for "Da Greatest" as well as "D.G.P." which stood for "Da Greatest Pimp." Stormy was impressed that Defendant was well dressed and drove a Jaguar. He told her he worked for an escort company and that it was legal employment, not prostitution. Stormy believed the escort services would only involve spending time with clients without sex. Defendant told Stormy she could make good money as an escort in College Station, Texas, and that if she agreed to go with him, he would buy her heroin, which she started using regularly after meeting Defendant.

{4} Defendant, with the help of Stormy and others, commonly used the website "" to post escort local ads in different cities to which they would travel, using such language as "hot, sexy, and ready" and "[s]e[x]y & [r]e[a]dy 2 p[l]ay." During Defendant’s trial, the State introduced sixteen such ads, four of which were posted for Albuquerque. Before they arrived in College Station, Defendant arranged for such an ad about Stormy to be posted. Stormy answered calls related to that and other such ads, adhering to a "call module" that Defendant scripted to specify what she should say to potential clients.

{5} Stormy learned that the escort services involved sex during the first few "in-calls" (when a client comes to the hotel for sex in exchange for money) in College Station, which took place while Defendant waited outside the room. She then asked to return home to San Antonio, to which Defendant responded, "Bitch, you’re not going anywhere. I’m a pimp." Stormy testified that Defendant put his hand around her throat, then threw her in the shower and beat her, leaving the television volume turned up so no one could hear her screaming. After the incident, Stormy testified that, although she still wanted to go home, she did not ask again because she was afraid of again being beaten. She continued having sex with clients for money in College Station, afterward handing all her earnings to Defendant. By then, in addition to having no money, Stormy did not have her identification because Defendant had taken it from her.

{6} Following a trip to Dallas for Thanksgiving, during which Defendant forced Stormy to perform fellatio on him and suggested he might force her to do so on his brother, as well, Stormy convinced Defendant that they should return to San Antonio. By then, she was withdrawing from heroin and suffering from anxiety, prompting Defendant to give her Xanax. On Christmas Eve 2011, Defendant also took Xanax and passed out, and Stormy escaped to meet her boyfriend. She then began to make escort appointments herself in San Antonio, keeping the money she made and avoiding heroin use.

{7} Not long after escaping from Defendant, Stormy received a "suspicious" call for a $400 appointment at a motel in a "shady" area of San Antonio. When Stormy entered the room, Defendant jumped out of the shower, banged her head against the mirror, hit her, and forced her to his car. Defendant then forced her to lay down in the backseat the entire way to Dallas. Stormy was scared that Defendant would make her shoot up heroin when they arrived, but instead, Stormy convinced Defendant to allow her to leave Dallas the next day. She did so claiming that her family may have alerted the police to her absence since she had not visited them at Christmas.

{8} About a year later, in December 2012, Stormy encountered Defendant on a street in San Antonio. At the time, she was again addicted to heroin, and Defendant said he could provide her all the heroin she wanted. She began working for Defendant again as an "escort," posting ads in different Texas cities.

B. New Mexico Incidents

{9} In January 2013, Defendant and Stormy came to New Mexico, and Defendant directed Stormy to recruit Tiffany G., a woman he had observed at the Greyhound Station in Albuquerque. Defendant had by then trained Stormy to "get girls, and post the ads, make sure everything was going smoothly," and Stormy’s job was to make it seem like "a real good deal" to work in the escort business. At that time, Stormy was using heroin daily, was often sick, and Defendant used her addiction to control her. Tiffany was also a heroin user, and Stormy lured her with the promise of "scor[ing]" heroin if she joined Defendant’s escort business. During that first trip in Albuquerque, at Defendant’s direction Stormy posted ads and had many in-calls at the Days Inn on Tramway and I-40 as well as several out-calls (where she went to a client’s house), for which Defendant collected the money. After Tiffany joined Defendant’s escort operation, she, Defendant, and Stormy traveled to Texas, and returned to New Mexico in early February.

{10} On this second trip to New Mexico, Tiffany, Stormy, and Defendant stayed in Room 118 at the Days Inn at Hotel Circle in Albuquerque. There, Stormy and Tiffany had several "in-calls" and "out-calls" throughout the day, sometimes working through the night. If the in-call was for only one of them, the other would wait in the bathroom.

{11} On February 20, 2013, Defendant directed Stormy to recruit another woman, R.R., who was only seventeen years old, at the Albuquerque bus station. Defendant targeted "weak links" or "young girls that ... don’t know exactly what ... they’re getting themselves into" for Stormy to recruit. At the station, Stormy invited R.R. "to smoke some weed and drink and just chill" in Defendant’s Cadillac while she waited for her bus. R.R. agreed, and was startled when Defendant and his nephew jumped into the front seat of the car and drove them to Days Inn. Defendant whispered to Stormy when they arrived at the hotel, "[y]ou know what you need to do[,]" which meant to her that she must convince R.R. to join Defendant’s escort business. Defendant also sent Stormy texts that stated, "[l]ock [R.R.] up for our family" and "[m]ake sure she don’t go nowhere." Stormy lied to R.R. that having sex with clients was not required because Stormy knew R.R. "would [not] agree to just having sex for money straight up."

{12} Stormy knew first she had to take R.R.’s purse away, "because it makes [girls] not want to leave if they don’t have their ID." Then, she loosened R.R. up with drinks and marijuana and encouraged R.R. to shower and change her clothes, while Defendant went out to purchase an alluring outfit for her. Stormy then told R.R., "You can’t go anywhere because [Defendant] is going to kill me if I let anything happen to you." R.R. testified that she was scared, never left alone, and that she did not try to leave because she did not know what they would do to her. When Defendant returned to Room 118 with Tiffany, Stormy gave R.R. purple lingerie Defendant bought for her to wear, and he took photos of them.

{13} Soon thereafter, they went to the Isleta Hard Rock Resort & Casino for a client call, and Defendant collected a thousand dollars from the client. There, R.R. had sex with the client while Stormy checked in on them from the bathroom, criticizing R.R. for throwing in "extras" (different sexual positions) without collecting more money. Stormy stated R.R. appeared drunk during the encounter, and notified Defendant by text that R.R. behaved childishly during an ensuing dinner with the client. Following dinner, Stormy and Tiffany agreed to have sex with the client’s brother for $800 and left R.R. with the client. R.R. then convinced the client to help her escape, and when Stormy and Tiffany returned to collect R.R., the client hid R.R. in the adjoining room he purchased, and said that R.R. had left. R.R. did not leave that night because she was afraid that Defendant and Stormy would catch her in the lobby. That night, Defendant found R.R.’s ID in her purse and learned she was only seventeen.

{14} Two days later, on February 22, 2013, Stormy and Defendant were arrested in Albuquerque during a sting operation. While in jail, Stormy called Defendant for bail and food money, and also asked him to bail out Cordelia C., a friend she made in jail. Stormy told Cordelia that Defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Arvizo
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 11 Mayo 2021
    ...are based on sufficiently distinct acts and therefore do not violate double jeopardy. See State v. Carson , 2020-NMCA-015, ¶ 41, 460 P.3d 54, cert. denied , 2020-NMCERT-–––– (No. S-1-SC-38128, Feb. 6, 2020) (applying the Herron factors and concluding that intervening events alone, without a......
  • State v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 19 Abril 2021
    ...intent as evidenced by his [or her] conduct and utterances; and (6) the number of victims." State v. Carson , 2020-NMCA-015, ¶ 34, 460 P.3d 54 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In analyzing a double jeopardy claim, the number of victims has a special significance because " ‘[......
  • Imming v. De La Vega
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 1 Febrero 2023
    ...a district court's balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice for abuse of discretion." State v. Carson, 2020-NMCA-015, ¶ 28, 460 P.3d 54; see also State v. 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 48, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 ("In determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion in apply......
  • State v. Applewhite
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 21 Diciembre 2021 Albuquerque, and again between February 17, 2013, and February 22, 2013, during their second trip to Albuquerque." 2020-NMCA-015, ¶ 36, 460 P.3d 54, cert. denied , 2020-NMCERT-–––– (No. S-1-SC-38128, Feb. 6, 2020). After conducting a "six-factor" inquiry, the Court of Appeals of New Mexi......
  • 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