State v. Chavez

• Decision Date: 12 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. S-1-SC-37978,S-1-SC-37978
• Citation: 485 P.3d 1279
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

485 P.3d 1279

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Robert CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. S-1-SC-37978

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Filing Date: April 12, 2021

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellant Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Charles J. Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee

BACON, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

{1} In 2011, Richard Valdez (Victim) died after Defendant Robert Chavez and his coconspirators beat and shot him. Later they burned Victim's body in a 2006 Suzuki station wagon. After a joint trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, arson, and tampering with evidence due to his involvement in the murder of Victim. Defendant now appeals, arguing that (1) the trial court erred when it failed to sever the joint trial, (2) his convictions violate principles of double jeopardy, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his arson conviction. He asks this Court to reverse his convictions. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

{2} Defendant's case was joined with that of coconspirator, Matias Loza under Rule 5-203(B) NMRA. Defendant consistently opposed the joinder to Loza but never argued for severance. Only Loza submitted a motion for severance and argued at the hearing on joinder and severance before the court that a joint trial would prejudice him due to "unfavorable" defenses, in part because Defendant planned to testify but Loza did not. Loza's motion to sever notes that Defendant "would stipulate" to the motion, but Defendant did not join Loza in the motion. At the hearing before trial, Defendant made no comment on the issue of severance nor indicated why he did not join Loza's motion to sever the joint trial. Then, in a response to Loza's motion to sever filed after the hearing, Defendant only reiterated his opposition to the joinder.

{3} The trial court denied Loza's motion to sever and proceeded to trial.

{4} At the joint trial, the jury heard extensive evidence incriminating Defendant, including testimony from his nephew, Joey Chavez (Joey), who participated in the murder, and Tracy Garrison (Tracy), who was Joe Chavez's (Joe) girlfriend at the time of the murder. Joe is Defendant's brother, the father of Joey, and the father of Victim's girlfriend, Priscilla Chavez (Priscilla). The jury also heard from other witnesses including law enforcement officers, crime scene and forensic experts, and Loza's cellmate.

{5} The jury heard from Joey how Loza and Victim got into a fight on the evening of October 30, 2011, at Applebee's. Later, Defendant, Loza, and others drove around looking for Victim as they talked about killing him, a conversation which Loza recorded on his cell phone. In the recording, Defendant can be heard saying, "It's my turn, now. I get to pop him in the face. I know you like to hit him in the head, I like to hit him in the face, right in the ... forehead." The others also talked about how best to kill Victim. They returned to Defendant's house at around 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. on October 31 and slept. Joey testified that Defendant woke him up around noon, saying that Victim was on his way to Defendant's house and Joey should "get ready."

{6} Joey's testimony at trial revealed that Defendant, Loza, and others agreed to kill Victim. They planned for Victim to come to Defendant's house, to kidnap Victim, and then to kill him somewhere away from the house. Defendant specifically told Joey, Loza, and Joe not to "pop" Victim in the house. They had shackles to kidnap Victim, and Defendant gave Joey a flashlight to hit Victim if he tried to fight. Defendant also had a gun.

{7} Joey testified that after he woke up around noon on October 31, Victim arrived at Defendant's house, walked into the kitchen, and tried to apologize to Defendant for the fight the night before. Defendant, Loza, and Joey attacked Victim who tried to escape through the front door, which was locked. Defendant helped keep Victim from escaping by pulling him back into the house. Defendant, Joey, and Loza beat Victim, and Defendant hit Victim with Defendant's gun. Finally, while standing in the living room, Loza shot Victim in the head. Initially, Defendant directed everyone to leave Victim's body on the floor. Eventually, however, the coconspirators decided to "clean up" Victim's body by moving it and burning it in Priscilla's Suzuki. After driving a few miles away, Defendant handed Joey the matches to burn the Suzuki and Victim's body. Joey lit the vehicle on fire and left the scene with Defendant.

{8} After the State rested its case, Loza pleaded guilty. Loza did not testify at the trial. On the next day of trial after Loza pleaded guilty, Defendant testified in his own defense. Defendant claimed he was not present at the time of the murder.

{9} Defendant was convicted on all four counts.

III. DISCUSSION

A. In a Joint Trial, Each Defendant Must Individually Preserve the Issue of Severance

{10} Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that his joint trial with Loza should have been severed. He contends that the joint trial resulted in severe prejudice to him. Before we consider whether the trial court erred in deciding not to sever the joint trial, we first consider whether Defendant properly preserved his claim for severance.

1. Severance requires prejudice

{11} Severance allows a court to separate proceedings that involve joint offenses or joint defendants. Rule 5-203(C). In order to sever a case, there must first be a joinder under Rule 5-203(A) (joinder of offenses) or (B) (joinder of defendants). State v. Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 16, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828 ; State v. Paiz , 2011-NMSC-008, ¶ 18, 149 N.M. 412, 249 P.3d 1235. If there is joinder, and "[i]f it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced" by the joinder, then "the court may order separate trials of offenses, grant a severance of defendants, or provide whatever other relief justice requires." Rule 5-203(C).

{12} "A defendant ‘is prejudiced’ in this context if there is an appreciable risk that reversal will be warranted because of a later determination of actual prejudice." Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828 (quoting Rule 5-203(C) ); see also State v. Montoya , 1992-NMCA-067, ¶ 11, 114 N.M. 221, 836 P.2d 667 (determining that an appellate court must decide whether "there is an appreciable risk that the jury convicted for illegitimate reasons" by considering the degree of prejudice a joint trial causes and the strength of legitimate evidence against the defendant). Actual prejudice that might warrant severance includes when codefendants have contradictory, irreconcilable defenses, which could result in a jury "unjustifiably infer[ring] that this conflict alone demonstrates" guilt or when evidence is included in a joint trial when it would not be cross-admissible in separate trials. See State v. Segotta , 1983-NMCA-054, ¶¶ 30, 32, 100 N.M. 18, 665 P.2d 280 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), rev'd on other grounds , 1983-NMSC-092, ¶ 1, 100 N.M. 498, 672 P.2d 1129 ; Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828 (noting the possibility of prejudice if evidence would not have been cross-admissible in a separate trial). A defendant has the burden to establish prejudice. State v. Garcia , 2011-NMSC-003, ¶ 20, 149 N.M. 185, 246 P.3d 1057.

{13} We review a trial court's denial of a motion to sever for an abuse of discretion. Id. ¶ 16. "An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case." State v. Apodaca , 1994-NMSC-121, ¶ 23, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Simonson , 1983-NMSC-075, ¶ 22, 100 N.M. 297, 669 P.2d 1092 ). A trial court abuses its discretion if, at the time of the motion to sever, "there is an appreciable risk that reversal will be warranted because of a later determination of actual prejudice." Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828.

{14} Even if we conclude that a trial court abused its discretion when it decided not to sever, where an error is preserved, we review for harmless error. See State v. Lovett , 2012-NMSC-036, ¶¶ 52-53, 286 P.3d 265 ("In the context of failure to sever, we have sometimes called the harmless-error analysis a question of actual prejudice to the accused."). We "will not reverse unless the error actually prejudiced the defendant." Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 18, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828. "[A]ny error by the trial judge is harmless if it did not actually prejudice the defendant." Garcia , 2011-NMSC-003, ¶ 19, 149 N.M. 185, 246 P.3d 1057. However, when an argument is unpreserved, an appellate court will review only for fundamental error. State v. Barber , 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8, 135 N.M. 621, 92 P.3d 633.

2. Preserving severance

{15} To claim on appeal that a defendant was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to sever a joined trial, a defendant must have preserved the claim for severance by invoking "a ruling or decision by the trial court." Rule 12-321 NMRA. Defendant contends that New Mexico's preservation rules only require a party to invoke a trial court's ruling or decision. Defendant argues that he successfully preserved the issue of severance because the trial court denied Loza's motion to sever. This is incorrect.

{16} "To preserve an issue for review, it must appear that a ruling or decision by the trial court was fairly invoked ... [by an] object[tion] to a ruling or order at the time it is made." Rule 12-321. "The party claiming error must have raised the issue below clearly and have invoked a ruling by the court ...." Diversey Corp. v. Chem-Source Corp. , 1998-NMCA-112, ¶ 12, 125 N.M. 748, 965 P.2d 332 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). In order to invoke a ruling, a party must assert a legal principle and develop the facts to support the issue. State...