State v. Sosa

• Decision Date: 15 November 2000
• Docket Number: No. 26,047.,26,047.
• Citation: 129 N.M. 767,14 P.3d 32,2000 NMSC 36
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

14 P.3d 32

129 N.M. 767

2000 NMSC 36

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Daniel SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 26,047.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

November 15, 2000.

Liane Kerr, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant.

Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Steven S. Suttle, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

SERNA, Justice.

{1}DefendantDaniel Sosa appeals his conviction for first degree deliberate intent murder contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1(A)(1)(1994).SeeRule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA 2000(appeals from sentence of life imprisonment taken to the Supreme Court).Defendant asserts on appeal that there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict, that the State failed to prove deliberate intent for first degree willful and deliberate intent murder, and that the State failed to prove the corpus delicti.We affirm Defendant's conviction.

I.Facts and Background

{2} At approximately 6:30 p.m. on January 11, 1999, Ronnie Barela was shot in the face while standing on his front porch.During the investigation, police found a trail of teeth, bone fragments, and blood between Barela's house and the house of one of Barela's neighbors, Daniel Madison.The location and trajectories of the wounds as well as the presence of blood and tissue at the crime scene indicated that Barela was shot several more times as he attempted to escape from his assailant.Daniel Madison testified that he was standing on his front porch and saw the victim drive home at about 6:30.Madison testified that a minute or two later, he heard five or six gunshots; Madison then discovered and assisted Barela.Madison tried to stop Barela's bleeding while Madison's wife called 911.Madison asked Barela who shot him, and Barela replied, "Daniel Sosa."Barela repeated the name numerous times, and motioned with his fingers to describe a gun.Barela repeated his identification of "Daniel Sosa" to a police officer who subsequently arrived.Barela did not specifically identify "Daniel Sosa, Senior"(Defendant) or refer to Defendant's nickname, "Three-finger Sosa."Barela sustained a total of four gunshot wounds, in the face, right arm, left buttocks, and the back of the upper portion of his leg, and subsequently died from his wounds.

{3} A police officer noted that a holstered hand gun was near the front door of Barela's house, as was the victim's wallet.The officer testified that there was no blood or other evidence within the house to indicate that an altercation took place inside.

{4}Sylvia Sosa, Defendant's sister, testified that Defendant arrived at their mother's house on January 11th between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. Sylvia testified that Defendant had shaved his beard and head.A surveillance tape from a convenience store dated January 10, 1999, showed Defendant with a graying beard wearing a black hat.Sylvia stated that he was not behaving in a typical manner and demanded that she take him to the military base.She testified that she confronted Defendant after hearing from others that Defendant was trying to get his son, Daniel Chris Sosa, to take the blame for the murder.Sylvia testified that Defendant admitted to her that he killed Barela.She also made a statement to the police regarding this admission.

{5} Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder for the death of Ronnie Barela.The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment.

II.Discussion

A.Sufficiency of the Evidence

{6}"[T]he test to determine the sufficiency of evidence in New Mexico ... is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction."State v. Sutphin,107 N.M. 126, 131, 753 P.2d 1314, 1319(1988)."A reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, resolving all conflicts therein and indulging all permissible inferences therefrom in favor of the verdict."Id.;accordState v. Sanders,117 N.M. 452, 456, 872 P.2d 870, 874(1994)."This court does not weigh the evidence and may not substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder so long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict."Sutphin,107 N.M. at 131, 753 P.2d at 1319.

{7}Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence for a rational jury to find that he murdered Ronnie Barela.Defendant argues that no physical evidence connects him to the crime, and that there were no eyewitnesses who could identify him as the shooter.Defendant further suggests that some evidence more strongly connected his son to the murder.Finally, Defendant calls Sylvia Sosa's credibility into question.We reject Defendant's arguments.

{8}"An appellate court does not evaluate the evidence to determine whether some hypothesis could be designed which is consistent with a finding of innocence."Sutphin,107 N.M. at 130-31, 753 P.2d at 1318-19.Additionally, we note that credibility of witnesses is for the jury.State v. Riggs,114 N.M. 358, 362-63, 838 P.2d 975, 979-80(1992)(rejectingthe defendant's argument that a witness was not credible, stating "[t]he jury, and not this court, however, resolves questions of credibility and the weight to be given to testimony").Daniel Chris Sosa, Defendant's son, testified that he did not shoot the victim.The victim identified the shooter as "Daniel Sosa," and Sylvia Sosa testified that Defendant admitted to her that he shot the victim.We believe there is substantial evidence from which a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was the assailant.

{9}Defendant argues that there was no evidence to support deliberate intent necessary to sustain his first degree murder conviction.As this Court has noted, "`[d]eliberate intention' is defined as, `arrived at or determined upon as a result of careful thought and the weighing of the consideration for and against the proposed course of action.'"State v. Cunningham,2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 25, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176(quotingUJI 14-201 NMRA 2000)."Intent is subjective and is almost always inferred from other facts in the case, as it is rarely established by direct evidence."State v. Vigil,110 N.M. 254, 255, 794 P.2d 728, 729(1990)(quoted authority and quotation marks omitted).

{10}Defendant relies upon State v. Garcia,114 N.M. 269, 837 P.2d 862(1992), arguing that his sister's testimony regarding Defendant's admission is insufficient to form the foundation for deliberate intent.In Garcia,this Court discussed at length the parameters of deliberate intention and concluded that the evidence in that case did not support an inference that the defendant committed first degree murder.Id. at 271-75, 837 P.2d at 864-68.Garcia is plainly distinguishable on its facts, however.The Court described evidence that the defendant was intoxicated, drinking beer "throughout the morning and the night before" the killing and consuming "at least ten beers and three shots of whiskey that afternoon," prior to stabbing the victim around 3:30 p.m. Id. at 270, 837 P.2d at 863.We concluded that the evidence regarding the defendant's state of mind demonstrated that he quarreled and reconciled with the victim twice, and then they fought a short time later, punching and shoving each other, before the defendant cut the victim in the face and stabbed him in the chest, consistent with a rash, impulsive killing rather than one of deliberate intent.Id. at 274-75, 837 P.2d at 867-68.This Court noted that the defendant stated, "Remove [the victim] away from me or you're not going to be seeing him for the rest of the day," suggesting an intent to fight, not an intent to kill.Id. at 275, 837 P.2d at 868.Thus, because all of the facts in Garcia pointed away from careful thought and weighing of consideration for and against killing the victim, thereby negating any possible reasonable inference of deliberation, Garcia does not assist Defendant in the present case.SeeState v. Begay,1998-NMSC-029, ¶ 46, 125 N.M. 541, 964 P.2d 102(noting that, in Garcia,"the evidence was consistent with a rash and impulsive killing").

{11}Defendant also relies on Cunningham, in which the defendant, a few months prior to the murder, told the victim, "`I'll kill you, I'll shoot you, I don't care,'" arguing that there is no evidence that he made a statement that he intended to kill the victim.2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 4, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176.In Cunningham,this Court noted that there was evidence that the defendant was the aggressor who caused the armed conflict and that a reasonable juror could believe that the defendant fired the last bullet with deliberate intent after the victim was incapacitated and defenseless, in addition to the threat the defendant made to the victim.Id.¶ ¶ 27-28.We concluded that the jury could reasonably find that the act of firing a fatal shot at an incapacitated victim was "an act of a man who had decided as a result of careful thought and the weighing of the consideration that he was going to take the life of the [victim]."Id.(quoted authority and quotation marks omitted).The absence of a similar threatening statement in the present case does not require the Court to conclude that there was insufficient evidence.

{12}This case is somewhat similar to State v. Garcia,95 N.M. 260, 620 P.2d 1285(1980).In Garcia,this Court noted that the evidence demonstrated that the defendant"was the aggressor in the altercation with the deceased," and that "the deceased started running away when [the defendant] pulled out a gun."Id. at 261, 620 P.2d at 1286.The defendant argued that "only a few seconds elapsed between the time he pulled the gun and shot the deceased; he therefore did not have the opportunity to weigh or consider the reasons for or against his course of conduct."Id.In the present case, Defendant also contends that a jury could not reasonably find that Defendant had...