State v. Serrano
| Decision Date | 17 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. S-1-SC-35277,S-1-SC-35277 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTANA SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Stephen D. Aarons
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Kenneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
{1} Santana Serrano, convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, raises two issues on direct appeal to this Court. First, Defendant challenges the district court's jurisdiction to try her case. Second, Defendant argues that the district court improperly denied her motion for a new trial, contending that the State's use of captioning and audio enhancements during closing argument to emphasize portions of a cellular phone video, which had been introduced into evidence unenhanced, denied her a fair trial. We affirm Defendant's convictions by nonprecedential decision. See Rule 12-405(B) NMRA ().
{2} The charges in this case arose from events at a gathering of "forty or fifty"people, including Defendant and her boyfriend Deandre Gonzales, on the occasion of the recording of a music video at a venue in Hobbs, New Mexico, called "The Shop." Among those present was the victim, sixteen-year-old Daniel Garcia.
{3} A confrontation between Garcia and Gonzales began as a verbal argument inside "The Shop," escalating into a fight on the street beyond the parking lot. A crowd of people followed them, and two of the spectators recorded the fight on cellular phones.
{4} Prior to the fight, Gonzales handed Defendant several items, including a gun. After the fight was under way, when Garcia was getting the better of Gonzales, the disc jockey for the recording of the music video stepped in to break up the fight. Garcia and Gonzales separated, and while the crowd continued to urge Garcia to resume fighting, Gonzales walked over to Defendant and retrieved his gun. Gonzales then pointed the gun at Garcia and fired a single shot at Garcia's head, fatally wounding him. Gonzales and Defendant fled the scene together, but police located them at Defendant's residence early the following morning. Defendant told police that she held the gun during the fight to keep Gonzales from "do[ing some]thing stupid" but claimed he grabbed it away from her prior to the shooting.
{5} Defendant and Gonzales were both charged with first-degree murder.
Defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time of the incident, was charged under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-3(H) (2009), as a serious youthful offender and tried in district court as an adult. Following a three-day trial, a jury convicted Defendant of willful and deliberate first-degree murder.
{6} Evidence presented by the State at trial largely centered around the two cell phone videos that captured the events leading up to Garcia's shooting. The State's theory of the case was that Defendant actively participated in Garcia's murder by verbally encouraging and physically aiding Gonzales, and the State submitted to the jury that when Gonzales turned to Defendant looking for his gun, Defendant stated "here it is," extended her arm, and handed the gun to him. The defense offered the jury a different theory of events, contending that Defendant held the gun to keep it from Gonzales but that Gonzales "grabbed the gun" from Defendant and shot Garcia "in an instant," thereby negating any deliberate intention to kill Garcia on Defendant's part. The two cell phone videos were played for the jury multiple times throughout the trial and submitted to the court as evidentiary exhibits without objection.
{7} During the State's closing argument, the prosecutor used as a demonstrative aid an enhanced version of one of the cell phone videos (Closing Video) that visually andaudibly focused on the moment the gun exchanged hands between Defendant and Gonzales. The six-second clip was looped four times and had the words "It's right here" superimposed on the video at the instant the State alleged Defendant spoke them. The State claimed Defendant stated the words "here it is" as she handed the gun to Gonzales. Defense counsel did not object to the State's use of the Closing Video. Further, defense counsel took the opportunity during closing argument to again present an alternate interpretation of the events captured on the video.
{8} Counsel for both the State and Defendant reminded the jury that while each was submitting its position concerning what was depicted by the two videos admitted into evidence, the jury ultimately had the duty to make that determination. Immediately before closing arguments, the district court judge also explained to the jury that the attorneys' arguments in closing were not evidence. Accordingly, when the jury submitted a written request to the court for a copy of the Closing Video to consider in deliberations, the district court judge responded that the jury must decide the case based on the evidence that had been admitted by the court. The Closing Video was not submitted as evidence. After three hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of first-degree murder.
{9} Nearly a week later, Defendant moved the district court for a new trial, arguingthat the State's use of the enhanced cell phone video clip during closing argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct on two grounds. First, Defendant claimed that by attributing words to her as bold script overlaid on the video played during closing argument, the State violated the district court's ruling on her oral motion in limine asking the court to "prohibit the state from eliciting testimony from any of its witnesses as to what they believed Defendant's statements to be on the cell phone videos taken of the homicide." Second, Defendant claimed that the State's playing of the Closing Video denied her "a fair trial[ and] denied her Due Process and her right to cross examination and confrontation."
{10} After briefing and a hearing on the matter, the district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ultimately denied Defendant's motion. As to Defendant's first claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the court reviewed the transcript from the pretrial oral motion in limine in which defense counsel requested that the court prohibit witness comments about Defendant's statement to police to allow the jury to reach its own conclusions based on the video and audio recording of that police interview. The district court verbally ordered "that no witness [may] comment about the contents of Ms. Serrano's statement, without counsel first approaching the Bench and getting a ruling at that time." No other motions in limine were raised ordiscussed. The district court concluded that because Defendant's motion in limine and the court's related order did not address issues relevant to the cell phone videos, "[t]he State did not violate the Court's Orders in limine."
{11} Concerning Defendant's second contention of prosecutorial misconduct, the district court concluded that "[t]he State's use of the Closing Video did not violate the Defendant's right to a fair trial and due process of law." In relevant part, the district court found that both parties at trial "vigorously" asserted their positions regarding the contents of the cell phone videos, that "[t]he Closing Video did not alter the evidence, display false evidence, or provide unadmitted evidence to the jury," and that "[t]he State's use of the Closing Video was not without precedent or unique." Rather, use of the Closing Video was "no different than turning up the audio volume at a critical part of a recording; hitting the repeat button of a video to review that critical portion again; displaying a probative photograph multiple times to a jury; [or] high-lighting operative words in a 'blow up' of a contract . . . ."
{12} Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction. Defendant now appeals her conviction directly to this Court pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution, which provides that "[a]ppeals from a judgment of the district court imposing a sentence of death or lifeimprisonment shall be taken directly to the supreme court."
{13} For the first time on appeal, Defendant challenges the district court's jurisdiction to try her criminal case. See State v. Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 6, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040 (). Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Steven B., 2015-NMSC-020, ¶ 7, 352 P.3d 1181.
{14} Under Article VI, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution, district courts have jurisdiction over criminal matters not excepted by other constitutional provisions and in special cases and proceedings as established by law. When the defendant is a juvenile, criminal proceedings are first initiated in Children's Court and must comply with the Delinquency Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-2-1 to -33 (1993, as amended through 2016)....
To continue reading
Request your trial