State v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 18 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-37169,A-1-CA-37169 |
| Citation | 472 P.3d 1241 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, Margaret Crabb, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
{1} Defendant Santiago Martinez appeals his convictions for (1) homicide by vehicle (driving while under the influence of drugs), contrary to NMSA 1978, Sections 66-8-101(A), -102(B) (2016); (2) great bodily harm by vehicle (driving while under the influence of drugs), contrary to Sections 66-8-101(B), -102(B); (3) possession of drug paraphernalia, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-25.1(A) (2001, amended 2019) ; and (4) possession of marijuana, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23(A) (2011, amended 2019). Defendant raises three issues: (1) the admissibility of expert testimony concerning Defendant's alleged impairment; (2) the admissibility of Defendant's blood test results in evidence; and (3) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain Defendant's convictions. We affirm.
{2} Defendant's convictions arise from a tragic motor vehicle collision on Highway 64, near Dulce, New Mexico, on June 16, 2014. On February 15, 2015, Defendant was indicted by grand jury on charges of homicide by vehicle (driving while under the influence of drugs), great bodily harm by vehicle, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a controlled substance (marijuana). Defendant's trial commenced on June 20, 2017, and concluded on June 22, 2017. We summarize the evidence presented at trial regarding the collision and investigation, and the opinion of the State's expert as to whether Defendant was impaired and therefore unable to drive safely at the time of the collision.
{3} It was a sunny, clear afternoon, around 4:00 p.m., and Defendant and his girlfriend, Lindsay Hinds, were headed southeast on Highway 64 in Ms. Hinds' white Mercedes sedan. Defendant was driving, and Ms. Hinds was in the passenger seat. Headed northwest (in the opposite lane of travel) was Lylon Vigil, who was driving a GMC pickup truck. Ms. Vigil was driving slightly under the speed limit, and behind her were a dark SUV, followed by another pickup truck towing an RV. Emergency room physician Paul Mikkelson, M.D., was driving the pickup truck, and his partner, Sarah Yurkovich, a registered nurse, was in the passenger seat. Dr. Mikkelson, Ms. Yurkovich, and Ms. Vigil testified at trial regarding the collision.
{4} According to Dr. Mikkelson, the line of vehicles had just come over a rise when the collision occurred. The dark SUV had pulled out as if to pass Ms. Vigil's pickup truck, but then moved back into the line of cars, and tapped its brakes. At this point, Dr. Mikkelson "backed off," to give the SUV and the truck some additional space. Then, Dr. Mikkelson saw a white sedan in the oncoming southeast-bound lane turn suddenly into the northwest-bound lane, colliding head-on with Ms. Vigil's pickup truck. Dr. Mikkelson testified that the dark SUV immediately in front of him swerved to the right, onto the shoulder, and Dr. Mikkelson swerved to the left.
{5} Ms. Yurkovich testified that she had a clear view down the road after traveling over the rise. Before the collision, Ms. Yurkovich observed the white sedan weaving onto the shoulder, then over the center line, and then back into its lane. She commented about this to Dr. Mikkelson, because the movements of the approaching white sedan "alarmed" her. The white sedan then veered head-on into the pickup truck ahead of them. When asked about whether she saw the SUV pulling out to pass at some point prior to the collision, Ms. Yurkovich stated that she had no specific recollection of it, and that her attention was focused on the white sedan.
{6} Ms. Vigil also testified that the collision occurred just after cresting a small hill. Ms. Vigil had no recollection of any vehicle pulling out to pass. According to Ms. Vigil, the white sedan suddenly appeared on Ms. Vigil's side of the road as Ms. Vigil descended from the hill, and there was no way to avoid a head-on collision. Both Ms. Vigil and Ms. Yurkovich testified that the roadway was clear of obstructions prior to the collision and that there was no other traffic on the road.
{7} After the collision, Dr. Mikkelson pulled over, and he and Ms. Yurkovich checked on the occupants of the two vehicles. A number of passing motorists stopped to assist and call for help, but there was poor cellular reception in the area, and emergency services did not arrive on the scene for twenty to thirty minutes. Dr. Mikkelson and Ms. Yurkovich first checked the white sedan, and saw that Ms. Hinds was not wearing a seat belt and was slumped in her seat, unresponsive, and struggling to breathe. Dr. Mikkelson and Ms. Yurkovich opened Ms. Hinds' airway, and (with the assistance of a few others) carefully removed Ms. Hinds from the vehicle, but Ms. Hinds succumbed to her injuries—blunt trauma to the head
and chest—within minutes. The autopsy revealed that Ms. Hinds had 2 nanograms per milliliter of THC1 in her blood. Defendant, who was wearing his seatbelt, was slumped over, apparently unconscious and motionless, initially. Soon, however, he regained consciousness and began moaning, expressing confusion, and complaining of pain in his abdomen. Other motorists assisted in lifting Defendant out of the vehicle. Ms. Yurkovich then checked on Defendant, and stayed with him for ten to fifteen minutes, during which time Defendant was holding his belly and continuing to complain of pain, but was stable and responsive, as far as Ms. Yurkovich could discern.
{8} Ms. Vigil was conscious after the impact of the collision, but was in great pain and had difficulty breathing or moving. With Dr. Mikkelson's assistance and direction, other motorists helped remove Ms. Vigil from the GMC truck, via the passenger-side door. Dr. Mikkelson testified that Ms. Vigil appeared to be stable, though she complained of chest and belly pain.
{9} When asked if, while he was at the scene, Dr. Mikkelson or others had gone through or moved the items in the white sedan, Dr. Mikkelson stated that he and Ms. Yurkovich looked through a small wallet that they found near Ms. Hinds, to see if they could identify her, but otherwise didn't touch anything. Dr. Mikkelson also testified that he didn't see bystanders move or remove anything. Ms. Yurkovich testified that she noticed two small syringes containing a brown residue in the white sedan, which had various items scattered around the interior. She did not move anything and did not see anyone else move anything in the vehicle.
{10} The first police officers arrived at the scene five or ten minutes after EMS. New Mexico State Police, the Rio Arriba Sheriff's Office, and the Jicarilla Apache Police Department all dispatched officers, but the Rio Arriba Sheriff's Office led the investigation. Sergeant Gilbert Atencio of the Rio Arriba Sheriff's Office conducted the scene investigation, and testified that there were no skid marks, brake marks, or other evidence indicating that the white sedan had swerved or attempted to avoid either an obstruction or the collision with the GMC truck. Sergeant Atencio further testified that an accident reconstruction was not necessary because the "cause" of the collision was "obvious": the white sedan crossed over the center line and collided with the GMC pickup truck.
{11} Major Matthew Vigil, also of the Rio Arriba Sheriff's Office, investigated whether there was any evidence that either driver was impaired by a substance at the time of the collision. Major Vigil made contact with Lylon Vigil, who had not yet departed with EMS, and observed nothing suspicious for substance abuse. Defendant had already departed with EMS, so Major Vigil began photographing the white sedan, when he noticed a "heavy odor of raw marijuana" emanating from the vehicle. He saw two electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes): one in the driver's side door, and one on the driver's side floorboard. He also observed marijuana wax, a substance commonly smoked in e-cigarettes, in the vehicle. Sergeant Atencio also visually inspected the white sedan, and saw two syringes in the passenger seat, both of which contained a brownish-orange substance. Sergeant Atencio suspected that the substance was heroin, and determined that he should seek a search warrant for the vehicle; accordingly, he sealed the vehicle off with evidence tape. He also recalled a "very faint" odor of marijuana, but testified that he was focused on the syringes. Sergeant Atencio requested that the State Police intercept Defendant at the hospital to see if he displayed signs of impairment and to obtain a blood sample.
{12} Following the issuance of a search warrant, Sergeant Atencio and Major Vigil searched the white sedan and recovered (1) a glass smoking pipe with THC residue, found in the trunk; (2) nine syringes containing THC, and two jars containing a liquid tar substance, found in the trunk; (3) a green leafy substance containing THC, found in the trunk; (4) two small syringes with an orange-brown substance, containing THC, and a little vial, all found on the passenger seat; (5) a purple pill container containing nine tablets of alprazolam
, otherwise known as Xanax, a benzodiazepine; (6) a black digital scale in the center console of the sedan; (7) a silver grinder found in the driver's side door compartment; (8) a package of a green leafy substance containing THC found in the driver's side door compartment; (9) an e-cigarette found in the driver's side door compartment; (10) a mouth piece and cylinder from an e-cigarette found in the driver's side door compartment; and (11) an e-cigarette found on the driver's side...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Veith
...In reading the statute as a whole, we are also to consider "its purposes and consequences." State v. Martinez , 2020-NMCA-043, ¶ 34, 472 P.3d 1241. {13} We start by considering the misdemeanor arrest rule, which provides context for our discussion of the statute in this case. "The misdemean......
-
State v. Dirickson
...at trial, is at least partly to blame for any such lack of detail in the testimony. See State v. Martinez, 2020-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 45, 47, 472 P.3d 1241 (providing that error review may prove "an extremely difficult task" due to the failure to raise the claimed error at trial and the resulting la......