State v. Mote
| Decision Date | 14 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-37958,A-1-CA-37958 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD MOTE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 OTERO COUNTY
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Anne E. Minard, Assistant Attorney General
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
{1} Defendant Donald Mote appeals his convictions of aggravated battery against a household member, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-16(C) (2008, amended 2018), and false imprisonment, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-4-03 (1963). Defendant raises a number of issues on appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{2} In April 2016, Victim moved into a new trailer with her two children, K.C., eight years old, and P.S., six years old. At the time, Victim was in a romantic relationship with Defendant. Defendant first visited the trailer the afternoon of April 11, 2016, and became upset because Victim leased the space without telling him.
{3} That evening, Defendant returned to the trailer and he and Victim continued to argue about Victim's lease. Defendant was upset because he thought Victim's male friend was named on the lease. The fighting escalated as Defendant yelled at Victim, demanding to see her phone, and she refused. Victim asked Defendant to leave and he refused. The argument included yelling, slamming doors, physical contact, and Victim yelling that she wished to be let out of the home. During the argument, Defendant threatened to kill Victim's two children if she did not show him the lease. Later, he told the children he was going to kill their mother. At one point, Defendant grabbed a kitchen steak knife, went into a bedroom, and told Victim he was going to kill himself. Victim grabbed at the knife trying to get it away from him and cut her finger.
{4} The argument culminated in the living room where Defendant shoved Victim against the wall, dragged her by her arms, got on top of her, and put his hands around her neck. She tried to scream while his hands were around her neck, but he slammed his hand down on her face. He was wearing a ring, and the ring chipped her tooth. During this time, K.C. heard thumps from his bedroom, went into the living room, and from the hallway witnessed Defendant on top of Victim. Victim could not breathe, became dizzy, and eventually was able to loosen Defendant's grip on her neck and tell him she would show him the lease. Once she did, Defendant saw that Victim's name was the only one on the lease.
{5} Defendant left the trailer early the next morning, and Victim went to the hospital where she worked. There, she told her boss what happened. Victim's boss took her to the hospital's emergency room to have her injuries assessed and someone called the police. Two days later, K.C. was interviewed by a Safehouse forensic interviewer about the incident.
{6} Defendant was charged with aggravated battery against a household member, contrary to Section 30-3-16(C), false imprisonment contrary to Section 30-4-03, and criminal damage to the property of a household member contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-18 (2009). At trial, Victim testified, K.C. testified, both an investigating officer and an investigating detective testified, as did the person who performed K.C.'s Safehouse interview. The jury found Defendant guilty of aggravated battery against a household member and false imprisonment but he was acquitted of the charge of criminal damage to the property of a household member.
{7} On appeal, Defendant raises three claims of error regarding admission of evidence: he argues1 that the district court erred by admitting video evidence of K.C.'s Safehouse interview because it was inadmissible under Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b) NMRA, hearsay, and prejudicial; a statement Defendant made during a break at trial because it was irrelevant and prejudicial; and text messages from Defendant because they lacked sufficient authentication. Defendant also argues the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by (1) referring to instances of violence outside of the record, (2) suggesting that the State and its law enforcement witnesses were impermissibly certain of Defendant's guilt based on their expertise in handling domestic violence cases, (3) attacking defense counsel's veracity in closing argument, (4) accusing defense counsel of harming victims of domestic violence, (5) inviting the jurors to stand up for domestic violence victims, (6) inviting the jury to put themselves in K.C.'s shoes, (7) urging the jury to rely on evidence admitted for a limited purpose as substantive proof of guilt, and (8) the combined impact of prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error. Defendant's final argument is that at sentencing, the State erred in arguing, and the district court erred in considering, evidence relating to charges in another case of which Defendant was acquitted. Finding no error, we affirm.
{8} We begin our analysis by addressing Defendant's claims of error relating to admission of evidence. "We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse in the absence of a clear abuse." See State v. Sarracino, 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20, 125 N.M. 511, 964 P.2d 72. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will find an abuse of discretion when the "[district] court's decision was obviously erroneous, arbitrary or unwarranted." State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 15, 131 N.M. 709, 42 P.3d 814 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, the district court has discretion on these issues and we defer to its judgement. See State v. White, 1997-NMCA-059, ¶ 9, 123 N.M. 510, 943 P.2d 544 (); State v. McGhee, 1985-NMSC-047, ¶ 24, 103 N.M. 100, 703 P.2d 877 ().
{9} Defendant argues that the district court erred in admitting K.C.'s Safehouse interview because it is inadmissible under Rule 11-801(D), hearsay, and prejudicial. Defendant frames his argument around his theory of the case, namely that K.C.'s story was tainted from the beginning because Victim provided information to K.C. and her information was not credible. Based on this, he argues, K.C.'s Safehouse interview was compromised from the start and does not meet Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b)'s requirement that the motivation to lie occurred after the consistent statement was made.
{10} At trial, K.C. testified regarding his recollection of the events at issue. During cross-examination, counsel for Defendant asked questions that implied that Victim could have influenced K.C.'s trial testimony when he and his mother discussed the incident the previous day. As a result of that implication, the State was allowed to introduce K.C.'s Safehouse interview as a prior consistent statement under Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b). Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b) excludes certain prior consistent statements from the definition of hearsay if "[t]he declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying[.]" "A prior consistent statement is admissible to counter a charge of recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive." State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 30, 146 N.M. 301, 210 P.3d 198. The statement at issue "must have been made before the alleged motive to fabricate occurred." State v. Nichols, 2006-NMCA-017, ¶ 20, 139 N.M. 72, 128 P.3d 500. Further, the statement "must be consistent with testimony made by the declarant at trial." State v. Sandate, 1994-NMCA-138, ¶ 18, 119 N.M. 235, 889 P.2d 843.
{11} Based on the questions asked by defense counsel regarding K.C.'s conversations with his mother the previous day, it was reasonable for the district court to find that defense counsel implied K.C.'s conversation with his mother could have influenced his trial testimony. Once defense counsel raised that inference, it was within the district court's discretion to grant the State's request to admit the Safehouse interview as K.C.'s prior consistent statement under Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b). See State v. Casaus, 1996-NMCA-031, ¶ 18, 121 N.M. 481, 913 P.2d 669 (). Although Defendant argues on appeal that his real objection to the district court's ruling is that the Safehouse interview was somehow compromised from its inception by Victim's motive to lie, Defendant did not raise this argument in district court and we decline to address this particular argument further. See State v. Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009, ¶...
To continue reading
Request your trial