State v. Coriz

• Decision Date: 22 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. A-1-CA-36713,A-1-CA-36713
• Parties: STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAYLA D. CORIZ, a/k/a LAYLA D. KESSLER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAYLA D. CORIZ, a/k/a LAYLA D. KESSLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-36713

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

March 22, 2021

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals 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for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY

Jennifer L. Attrep, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Benjamin Lammons, Assistant Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Law Works L.L.C.

John A. McCall

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MEDINA, Judge.

{1}Layla D. Coriz(Defendant) appeals her conviction for aggravated battery against a household member, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-16(C)(2008, amended 2018).On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for a mistrial.Defendant also raises three separate claims of fundamental error based on: (1)the district court's failure to sua sponte voir dire the jury following Defendant's motion for a mistrial; (2) prosecutorial misconduct; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.We affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2}Defendant's husband, James Coriz reported that on the evening of November 16, 2015, he entered their home and confronted Defendant about having previously damaged his vehicle and another vehicle he was working on for a customer.According to Coriz, Defendant accused him of caring more about the cars and his garage than he did for her.Defendant then squirted gasoline on Coriz's face and lit him on fire with a cigarette lighter.Coriz was immediately engulfed in flames and ran to the bathroom to put the flames out.Defendant followed Coriz into the bathroom, hit him on the head with the "toilet cover," and then fled.Coriz ran outside and called to his brother for help, who then drove Coriz to an Española hospital.On the way to the hospital, Coriz repeatedly stated, "Carnale, look what she did to me.She did it.She's wanting to kill me.She wants to kill me."By the time they arrived at the hospital, Coriz had gone into shock and was transported to a hospital in Albuquerque, where he was treated for severe burns.

{3} A criminal information charged Defendant with aggravated battery on a household member.Three months prior to trial, Coriz mailed a letter to the district court judge requesting dismissal of the charge against Defendant, claiming that the events of November 16, 2015, were an accident.A jury trial commenced in February 2017.Twelve witnesses testified including Coriz and New Mexico State Police Case AgentJesse Whittaker.Consistent with his letter of recantation, Coriz testified that the injuries he received on the evening of November 16, 2015, were caused by an accident.The State impeached Coriz's testimony by playing excerpts of his December 9, 2015, recorded interview with Agent Whittaker in which Coriz stated that Defendant"squeezed" gas on his face and lit him on fire with a lighter.Agent Whittaker testified to his participation in the investigation including his interviews with both Defendant and Coriz.

{4}Defendant's recorded interview was also played for the jury.During her interview Defendant admitted to throwing gasoline on Coriz, but claimed that she had thrown the gasoline at his legs not his head and that she didn't think it was going to be that bad.

{5} The jury returned a verdict form along with two unsigned notes.Upon receiving the notes—and before reading the verdict—the district court disclosed to both counsel that "a juror upon returning the verdict stated some discomfort and concern for her safety . . . upon return of the verdict, that certain parties might not be happy with the verdict, and so I have arranged for deputies to escort the jury out of the court house once the verdict is returned."

{6} Shortly thereafter the district court held a second bench conference during which the district court informed both counsel that two unsigned notes were received from the jury.The first note read as follows:

Mr. Coriz is very intimidating.We have met him (accidently) outside of the courtroom.During the proceedings, he has glared at each juror.I want to ensure the safety of each juror.

The second note read:

Four of the jurors witnessed . . . Coriz give [Agent] Whittaker a throat slashing sign while he was on the stand.

Defense counsel moved for a mistrial.The district court concluded the bench conference in order to read the notes into the record and ensure the parties' arguments were made on the record.

{7} After reading the notes into the record the district court stated that it had not witnessed Coriz's hand gestures.In addition to moving for a mistrial, Defense counsel inquired whether the jury produced the notes before or after reaching the verdict.The district court responded that it did not know, explaining that it had been advised that the jury had reached a verdict about half an hour ago and had just received the notes.Defense counsel stated that he had not seen Coriz's actions during Agent Whittaker's testimony and argued, "It's very difficult to believe that they wrote that note and somehow it didn't affect their decision-making process."The State then disclosed that Agent Whittaker "did inform the [S]tate yesterday that Coriz did make a throat slashing motion at him" and argued that there are no grounds for a mistrial because the jurors are instructed to take into account a witness's manner while testifying.Defense counsel responded that he would normally agree with the State but it is different where jurors are in fear for their physical safety.

{8}The district court ruled that in the absence of cited authority indicating that some jurors' perception that a witness is threating or intimidating is grounds for a mistrial, it was denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial without prejudice.The district court further stated that Defendant could renew the motion for a mistrial in writing.

{9} Thereafter, the jury returned to the courtroom and the court read the verdict, finding Defendant guilty of aggravated battery against a household member.The district court polled the jurors who affirmed the verdict, addressed Defendant's presentence confinement, and recessed.Later that afternoon the district court met with both counsel and inquired if the parties wished to seal the records containing the identity of the jurors.The State deferred to the district court.The district court stated that it would not seal the records on its own motion.The district court advised that if the State came across additional information regarding any allegations pertaining to Coriz's conduct during Agent Whittaker's testimony, and upon review of relevant rules, the State could move to seal the records.The State responded that its office was looking into the matter and understood that "there is a video, since the courtrooms are equipped with audio video or just video recording and that the video had been reviewed by our office."Defense counsel advised that he would not be moving to seal the record and the hearing concluded.This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

{10}Defendant raises four arguments on appeal.First, Defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for mistrial because the jury's notes created a presumption of prejudice and the district court did not voir dire the jury.Second, Defendant argues that the district court's failure to sua sponte voir dire the jury amounts to fundamental error.Third, Defendant argues that the State's failure to disclose its knowledge of Coriz's hand gestures to Agent Whittaker prior to revelation in the jury note was prosecutorial misconduct amounting to fundamental error.Fourth, Defendant argues that fundamental error occurred based on ineffective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel's failure to request an evidentiary hearing at trial, failure to file a written motion for mistrial, and failure to request the video of the throat slashing gesture.We address each argument in turn.

The District Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Denying Defendant's Motion for Mistrial

{11}Defendant argues that the juror notes revealed an unauthorized juror communication which in turn created a presumption of prejudice warranting a mistrial."We review the denial of a motion for mistral under an abuse of discretion standard."State v. Stallings, 2020-NMSC-019, ¶ 62, 476 P.3d 905.A district court abuses its discretion when it acts "in an obviously erroneous, arbitrary, or unwarranted manner[,]State v. Fry, 2006-NMSC-001, ¶ 50, 138 N.M. 700, 126 P.3d 516(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), or "when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case."State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 68, 279 P.3d 747(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

{12}We first address Defendant's contention that any unauthorized communication to the jury is presumptively prejudicial and that a defendant does not bear a burden to establish prejudice.In support of each of these contentions, Defendant relies on State v. Gutierrez, 1967-NMCA-024, 78 N.M. 529, 433 P.2d 508.In Gutierrezthis Court held that "[u]nauthorized communications to the jury in state courts must be judged by the federal requirements of due process."Id.¶ 15.In conformity with Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227(1954), this Court held that "under standards of due process, any unauthorized communication is presumptively prejudicial" and that "the burden is not upon the defendant to establish the existence of prejudice."¹Gutierrez, 1967-NMCA-024, ¶ 16.The State counters that "the presumption of prejudice no longer exists under New Mexico [jurisprudence]" and that as the...