State v. Chavez
| Decision Date | 16 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. S-1-SC-37067,S-1-SC-37067 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOE DAVID CHAVEZ, SR., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY
Jeffrey J. Buckels
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
{1} Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, arson, and tampering with evidence. Defendant received a life sentence plus fifteen years in prison and appeals directly to this Court. See N.M. Const. Art. VI, sec. 2 (). Defendant contends that due to erroneous rulings of the district court, he is entitled to a new trial. Defendant also argues cumulative error entitles him to a new trial and that the evidence fails to support the guilty verdicts. We disagree and affirm. Because existing precedent sufficiently addresses the questions raised by this case, we exercise our discretion under Rule 12-405 to dispose of this case by nonprecedential decision.
{2} Police were dispatched to the scene of a car fire after a local resident called 911 to report that he observed flames while looking out his kitchen window. The resident testified that he first heard a loud car and when he looked out his window toward the direction of the sound of the loud car, he did not see anything. Then he heard "pops" and went to look out another window where he saw a car in flames. Upon arrival, police discovered the body of Richard Valdez (Victim), the boyfriend of Defendant's daughter, in a burning Suzuki station wagon. The police also found Matias Loza (Loza), who was crouching under a fifth-wheel and appeared to be nervous and sweating profusely. Loza kept saying "They're after me, they're chasing me." Loza told police that he was taken to the area "in a newer model four door purplish/blue Chevrolet pickup truck" by unknown assailants and feared for his life due to their conduct. Loza stated that he was able to get away but the assailants shot at Loza as he ran through the desert. An investigation of the crime scene revealed that the burning car was set on fire intentionally and forensic experts concluded Victim was killed by a gunshot wound to the back of the head.
{3} Detective Fabian Picazo (Picazo) testified that he was advised to go to the hospital where Loza was in custody. Picazo asked Loza to give him everything he had and confiscated Loza's wallet, cell phone, and some miscellaneous papers. Police had already taken a lighter that was found on Loza at the scene of the car fire. Picazo testified about evidence recovered from Loza's cell phone, which included two "voice notes" or voice recordings (the "Loza recordings"). The first of these, Picazo stated, was the "hunt" recording which showed they were looking for Victim and the second was the "clean-up" recording which showed "they were preparing the body, how to dispose of it." The "clean-up recording" was played for the jury where Defendant was identified discussing "torching" the car. Picazo testified that Defendant was not on the "hunt" recording and there was nothing on that recording showing that Defendant gave any "instructions" to murder Victim or that Victim was a threat to the AZ Boys, a drug trafficking organization (DTO).
{4} Approximately one week after the murder, Defendant was interviewed by police and denied knowing Loza. When police showed Defendant a photo of Victim, he was hesitant to answer and finally replied that Victim was his daughter's boyfriend. Police also asked Defendant about a 2006 Suzuki station wagon, which he admitted he had purchased for his daughter after more hesitation. A few days after that interview, police learned from an anonymous source that Defendant, his brother, and Loza had visited a strip club together. In addition, police obtained a group photograph that included Defendant and Loza, which was taken three weeks before Victim's murder.
{5} Six months after Victim's murder, Detective Preston Eldridge (Eldridge), who worked for the narcotics division and was familiar with the AZ Boys, testified that a search warrant was obtained to search Defendant's residence for evidence of money laundering, and that there was also an arrest warrant for Defendant because he had been charged with money laundering. Upon execution of the warrants, the police placed Defendant in custody and began searching the residence. Eldridge searched Defendant's bedroom and located evidence that could have been "related to another crime." Eldridge had all officers stop searching and vacate the residence until another search warrant could be obtained to search for "different evidence."
{6} Eldridge testified that he then took part in the second search of Defendant's residence. Eldridge found a set of keys belonging to a 2006 Suzuki, one pound of marijuana, approximately $30,000 in cash, and newspaper publications about the burning car where Victim was found. Eldridge testified that the search uncovered numerous receipts for various storage units, which led to a subsequent investigation where police located a purple GMC truck which was registered to Defendant.
{7} Norman Rhodes (Rhodes), a crime scene investigator, described a vacant residence where he was asked to search the living room for blood evidence. The vacant residence was identified as the previous residence of Defendant's brother, Robert (Bob). Rhodes testified that he took samples of suspected blood from the living room wall and the garage. Annette Ortiz (Ortiz), a forensic scientist specializing in DNA analysis, testified that she conducted a DNA analysis of Victim's blood and two swabs containing suspected blood from a "living room wall" and a "garage wall." Ortiz testified that the blood on both swabs was the blood of Victim "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty."
{8} Police received additional information from confidential informants that Loza had admitted that he had murdered Victim and that he was an "enforcer" for the AZ Boys. Police also conducted an interview with Defendant's girlfriend, who stated that Defendant told her that they had killed Victim and left the body in a burning car. Using all the aforementioned information, police obtained a warrant for Defendant's arrest.
{9} Defendant raises six issues on appeal. Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in admitting "extensive uncharged misconduct evidence" on grounds that the State failed to adduce evidence linking the interests of the AZ Boys to the murder of Victim. Second, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in permitting the State to call an inmate, Jude Sanchez, to testify concerning a conversation that he had with Loza while they were incarcerated together, asserting that the State failed to establish Loza's unavailability. Third, Defendant argues the trial court erred in permitting Defendant's girlfriend, Tracy Garrison, to testify that Defendant was a "wife-beater," which was offered "in the absence of any non-propensity purpose to the evidence." Fourth, Defendant argues that the prosecution made "critical, misleading representations prior to trial" concerning a recording which listed Defendant on the coversheet of a transcript that was meant to aid the jury, where Defendant was never actually a participant on the recording. Fifth, Defendant contends that these errors amounted to cumulative reversible error which deprived Defendant of a fair trial. Finally, Defendant asserts, "[a]lternatively, the Court should find that the State failed to bring substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction for [m]urder or [c]onspiracy, vacate the convictions, and remand with instructions to dismiss those charges with prejudice." We address each argument in turn.
{10} Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning the AZ Boys against Defendant. Defendant specifically argues that the "evidence actually adduced at trial of a link between the interests of the DTO and the killing of [Victim] fell far short of the State's pretrial proffer, so that the trial court's admission of the 'association' evidence was based on a gross overestimate of the probative value of the DTO evidence, while its unfair prejudice to [Defendant] remained extreme." Defendant asserts that the "articulated non-propensity purpose of the DTO evidence was to show that [Victim] had become a security threat to the [DTO] and/or to its 'integrity'" which demonstrated Defendant's motive or intent to either direct or participate in the murder. Defendant contends that these representations did not turn out to be the evidence at trial.
{11} The State responds that the evidence was properly admitted to establish "that the members of the AZ Boys DTO, a criminal enterprise that was the sole source of income for Defendant, Loza and others, had a joint motive to kill [Victim] because he disrespected the DTO." The State argues that the evidence had great probative value because "it provides the 'causal link' between the DTO and the [Victim's] murder that Defendant asserts was missing." "Without such evidence, the jury would have no idea why Defendant wanted [Victim] dead; why he...
To continue reading
Request your trial