State v. Reynosa
| Decision Date | 11 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-1-CA-39866 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ZACHARIAH REYNOSA a/k/a ZACHARIA RUSSELL REYNOSA a/k/a ZACHARIAH RUSSELL REYNOSA a/k/a ZACHARIAH REYNOSO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Courtney Weaks District Court Judge
Raul Torrez, Attorney General
Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General
for Appellee
Harrison, Hart & Davis, LLC
Daniel J. Gallegos
Nicholas T. Hart
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
{¶1} Defendant Zachariah Reynosa was convicted of robbery, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-2 (1973); and aggravated battery (no great bodily harm), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-5(B) (1969). On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his robbery and aggravated battery convictions, as well as the district court's denial of his request for a jury instruction on larceny, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-1(A) (2006). Defendant also claims that his convictions for both robbery and aggravated battery violate double jeopardy. We agree that Defendant's convictions of both robbery and aggravated battery violate double jeopardy, and vacate Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery and remand for resentencing. Otherwise, we affirm.
{¶2} This case arose out of an incident on March 15, 2020, which took place in the men's restroom at Route 66 Casino Hotel, on the Laguna Pueblo in the State of New Mexico. Victor Reyes (Victim) testified that he was using a urinal when two unknown men approached him and demanded that he hand over his belongings. According to Victim, one man, who was never identified, threatened to kill him if he moved, holding a knife near his neck, while Defendant used his closed fists and elbow to strike Victim's face and head. Victim testified that after he handed over his car keys, wallet, and cell phone to one of the men, the man with the knife left the restroom. Defendant, however, continued to strike Victim and tried to drag him toward the toilet stalls. Victim was able to slip past Defendant, escape into the casino, and shout for security. Victim identified Defendant to the officers as the man who robbed him. Security officers restrained Defendant as he attempted to leave the casino. Victim's wallet was found in Defendant's possession.
{¶3} Kevin Lucero, a witness at trial, testified that he was in one of the toilet stalls during the incident. Lucero testified that the incident was over so quickly he was not able to exit the stall in time to see anything that happened. He did, however, hear what he described as a man asking, "What's up, man?" followed by what sounded like grunts and blows. Defendant's recorded statement to police was played for the jury at trial. We discuss that statement where necessary to our analysis.
{¶4} Defendant makes four claims on appeal: (1) the evidence is insufficient to establish that he took Victim's wallet by force or violence, as required to convict him of robbery; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish that Defendant applied force to Victim or that any force applied caused Victim painful temporary disfigurement, requirements of aggravated battery without great bodily harm; (3) the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny; and (4) Defendant's convictions of both aggravated battery and robbery violate double jeopardy protections. We address the sufficiency of the evidence claims first, followed by the claim of error in the jury instructions, and finally the double jeopardy issue.
{¶5} As to both his convictions of robbery and aggravated battery, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence to establish that he applied force or used violence against Victim, either in taking his wallet, a required element of robbery, or in causing painful temporary disfigurement, required for aggravated battery without great bodily harm. See UJI 14-1620 NMRA.
{¶6} "[W]e apply a substantial evidence standard to review the sufficiency of the evidence at trial." State v. Chavez, 2009-NMSC-035, ¶ 11, 146 N.M. 434, 211 P.3d 891. In doing so, we determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). We "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict." Id. "Jury instructions become the law of the case against which the sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured." State v. Garcia, 2016-NMSC-034, ¶ 17, 384 P.3d 1076 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).
{¶7} Defendant contends that the jury's findings that he was not guilty of armed robbery should also exonerate him of robbery. Defendant concedes, however, that Victim testified that Defendant struck him repeatedly with his closed fists and elbow.
Defendant also concedes that Victim's testimony connected his striking of Victim to the taking of Victim's wallet. Based on the Victim's testimony alone, a jury could reasonably conclude that Defendant took Victim's wallet by battering Victim with Defendant's closed fists and elbow. State v. Soliz, 1969-NMCA-043, ¶ 8, 80 N.M. 297, 454 P.2d 779.
{¶8} This same testimony is sufficient to establish that "[D]efendant touched or applied force to [Victim] by striking him," a required element of aggravated battery. UJI 14-321 NMRA. As to that striking having caused "painful temporary disfigurement," another requirement of Defendant's conviction of misdemeanor aggravated battery, § 30-3-5(B), the testimony of Victim that his neck hurt and he was dizzy, combined with the testimony of Laguna Pueblo Officer Thomas Kohn that he "saw a reddish mark across [Victim's] throat, just below his chin and above his collar" is sufficient to establish painful temporary disfigurement. Defendant argues that Officer Kohn's testimony about a visible mark was impeached by the officer's prior statements. Credibility, however, is determined by the jury, and the fact that there was contradictory testimony, even by the same witness, does not require the jury to find the witness not credible. See State v. Sena, 2008-NMSC-053, ¶ 11, 144 N.M. 821, 192 P.3d 1198 . We, therefore, conclude that both Defendant's conviction of robbery and his conviction of aggravated battery were supported by sufficient evidence.
{¶9} Defendant argues that he was entitled to a jury instruction on larceny, contrary to Section 30-16-1(A), as a lesser included offense of armed robbery[1] and robbery. In order to reverse a conviction for failure to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense, we must be satisfied that the three-pronged test outlined in State v. Hill is satisfied. 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 16, 131 N.M. 195, 34 P.3d 139. Here, only the second prong, whether ""there is evidence tending to establish the lesser included offense and that evidence establishes that the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed," is disputed by the parties. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we limit our analysis to the second prong.
{¶10} Defense counsel argues that a jury could have "credited [Defendant's] admission to picking up the alleged [V]ictim's wallet" from the floor of the restroom after the man with the knife left, and could have relied on that testimony to find that Defendant had not used force or violence to take the wallet. We are not persuaded.
Based on our review of Defendant's interview by Laguna Pueblo police, which was played for the jury, it is evident that his use of force against Victim was integral to the taking of the wallet. This was not simply a lost wallet that ended up on the floor without the use of violence. Defendant admitted he repeatedly punched Victim, before picking up the wallet from where it had been dropped on the restroom floor. The fact that it may have been dropped on the floor during the violence does not exonerate Defendant. We, therefore, agree with the district court that no rational jury could find Defendant guilty of larceny as the highest degree of crime committed. We conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to give an instruction on larceny.
{¶11} Defendant contends that his convictions for robbery and aggravated battery violate double jeopardy. He claims he was punished under multiple statutes for the same underlying conduct. The State concedes Defendant's convictions constitute double jeopardy and agrees that the conviction for aggravated battery should be vacated. However, "we are not bound by the [s]tate's...
To continue reading
Request your trial