State v. Thomas
Citation | 2016 NMSC 024,376 P.3d 184 |
Decision Date | 20 June 2016 |
Docket Number | NO. 34,042,34,042 |
Parties | State of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Truett Thomas, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Karl Erich Martell, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, M. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.
DANIELS
, Chief Justice.
{1} The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution
guarantee a criminal defendant the right to confront adverse witnesses. Defendant Truett Thomas appeals from his convictions of first-degree deliberate murder and first-degree kidnapping on multiple grounds, including an asserted violation of the Confrontation Clause through the admission of two-way video testimony of a prosecution witness. We reverse Defendant's convictions on this basis but remand for a new trial on the murder charge only, having concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping conviction. Although we need not decide whether social media posts by the district court judge about the case before him also would have required reversal, we caution judges to avoid both impropriety and its appearance in their use of social media.
I. BACKGROUND
{2} On June 3, 2010, Guadalupe Ashford's body was found partially hidden behind a trash can at the edge of a small parking lot. Drag marks and blood spatter indicated that Ashford had initially been assaulted in the lot and then dragged a short distance to its edge where her body was found. The drag marks were contained within the span of one parking space and extended less than ten feet. Ashford's body had significant head injuries
, including lacerations, skull fractures, and a dislodged tooth. The medical investigator determined that Ashford died from blunt force injuries to her head, but he could not identify which of the several injuries was the cause and could not calculate a specific time of death. Police testimony indicated that there were no known witnesses to the assault and that no one reported seeing Defendant in the area.
{3} An Albuquerque Police Department (APD) forensic scientist analyst performed DNA measurements of samples collected from Ashford's body and from a six-inch by six-inch bloodied brick described as “paver stone” and believed to be the murder weapon, generating DNA profiles of Ashford and of the presumed perpetrator. Unidentified DNA was also discovered on the paver stone, though in smaller amounts than the DNA evidence matching either of the full profiles. The forensic analyst entered the presumed perpetrator's profile into the CODIS database, which resulted in a match to Defendant. “Authorized by Congress and supervised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) connects DNA laboratories at the local, state, and national level ... [and] collects DNA profiles provided by local laboratories taken from arrestees, convicted offenders, and forensic evidence found at crime scenes.” Maryland v. King , ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 1968, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013)
. Defendant was arrested and charged on the basis of this DNA evidence, but he denied ever having met Ashford.
{4} Defendant was held in pretrial custody for twenty-two months before he moved to dismiss the charges for violation of his right to a speedy trial. The district court denied the motion and set the trial to begin approximately twenty-six months after Defendant's arrest.
The prosecutor replied that the State had not sought an enforceable subpoena for the witness in reliance on defense counsel's statement a week earlier that Skype would “work.” The district court judge took the position that Defendant had waived any objection to the use of two-way video by defense counsel's initial informal acquiescence.
{6} At trial seven days later, the State called the absent forensic analyst to testify via Skype. During her testimony, a computer image of the forensic analyst faced the jury, but she was able to see only an image of the attorney questioning her and could not see Defendant, the jury, or the district court judge at any time. A second APD forensic scientist analyst did testify in person for the State. She had reviewed and interpreted the measurements performed by the forensic analyst who testified by Skype but had not performed any of the DNA measurements herself.
{7} The jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping. The district court imposed consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for the murder and eighteen years for the kidnapping. Defendant moved for a new trial based on additional DNA evidence developed after trial that, according to Defendant's argument, suggested that one or more other individuals could have had contact with Ashford or with the murder weapon.
{8} At the hearing on that motion, before a successor district court judge, Defendant also raised the issue of social media posts made by the original district court judge during the pendency of the trial. The posts, made on a Facebook page used for the unsuccessful election campaign of the original district court judge, discussed Defendant's case. During trial, the district court judge had posted, “I am on the third day of presiding over my ‘first’ first-degree murder trial as a judge.” After trial, but before sentencing, the district court judge posted, The district court denied the motion for a new trial, and Defendant appealed his convictions directly to this Court pursuant to the New Mexico Constitution. See art. VI, § 2 ().
II. DISCUSSIONA. Defendant's Right to a Speedy Trial Was Not Violated
{9} We first address Defendant's argument that his twenty-six months of pretrial custody violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. See U.S. Const. amend. VI
( ); N.M. Const. art. II, § 14 (same). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right to state prosecutions. Klopfer v. North Carolina , 386 U.S. 213, 222–23, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967). Because Defendant makes no claim that his rights under the New Mexico Constitution should be interpreted more broadly than those guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, “we base our discussion of this issue on the constitutional requirements established under federal law.” State v. Coffin , 1999–NMSC–038, ¶ 54 n.2, 128 N.M. 192, 991 P.2d 477.
{10} Pretrial delay may trigger a speedy trial inquiry but is not alone determinative of a constitutional violation. State v. Samora , 2013–NMSC–038, ¶ 24, 307 P.3d 328
. Instead, in accordance with the federal constitutional guidelines established by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), we must review the individual circumstances of the case, including the conduct of both prosecution and defense, and the actual harm that a defendant may have suffered as a result of pretrial delay. State v. Garza , 2009–NMSC–038, ¶ 13, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387. Factors in this analysis are (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reasons for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right, and (4) the actual prejudice to the defendant incurred from the delay. Barker , 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182. “Each of these factors is weighed either in favor of or against the State or the defendant, and then balanced to determine if a defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.” State v. Spearman , 2012–NMSC–023, ¶ 17, 283 P.3d 272. While we give deference to the factual findings of a trial court in performing this analysis, we review the application of the factors de novo. Id . ¶ 19
.
{11} The district court found that this was a complex case due to the required DNA analysis and the average time required to process a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haggard v. State
......Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210, 240 (4th Cir. 2008) (same); United States v. Yates , 438 F.3d 1307, 1313 (11th Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Bordeaux , 400 F.3d 548, 554 (8th Cir. 2005) (same); Lipsitz v. State , 135 Nev. 131, 442 P.3d 138, 140 (2019) (same); 612 S.W.3d 326 State v. Thomas , 2016-NMSC-024, ¶ 28, 376 P.3d 184, 194 (same); State v. Rogerson , 855 N.W.2d 495, 504 (Iowa 2014) (same); State v. Stock , 2011 MT 131, ¶¶ 25, 30, 361 Mont. 1, 256 P.3d 899, 904 (same); Bush v. State , 2008 WY 108, ¶ 52, 193 P.3d 203, 215 (same); Harrell v. State , 709 So. 2d 1364, ......
-
Miller v. Carroll (In re Paternity B.J.M.)
......II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15 "The right to an impartial judge is fundamental to our notion of due process." State v. Goodson , 2009 WI App 107, ¶8, 320 Wis. 2d 166, 771 N.W.2d 385 ; see also Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. , 556 U.S. 868, 876, 129 S.Ct. ...Thomas , 376 P.3d 184 (N.M. 2016), in which a judge posted twice on his campaign Facebook account regarding a trial in his courtroom, including a post ......
-
State v. Sena
......We 470 P.3d 238 therefore proceed to the State's argument that no prejudice resulted. {29} In the case of a constitutional error, "it is harmless only if the challenger can prove there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Thomas , 2016-NMSC-024, ¶ 33, 376 P.3d 184 (quoting State v. Tollardo , 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25, 275 P.3d 110 ). "We must reverse a conviction if the erroneously admitted evidence might have contributed to it." Thomas , 2016-NMSC-024, ¶ 33, 376 P.3d 184. "[T]he existence of other evidence to support ......
-
State v. Mercier
...... Compare Rogerson , 855 N.W.2d at 502-503 (applying Craig to two-way video systems while noting that state courts in Florida, Texas, Wyoming, North Carolina, Virginia, New York, Montana, and Pennsylvania had done the same); and State v. Thomas , 376 P.3d 184, 193-94 (N.M. 2016) (applying Craig 's two-prong test without analysis of one-way versus two-way video 403 Mont. 45 procedures), with Jemison , 505 Mich. at 365, 952 N.W.2d 394 (confining the Craig test to its specific facts—one-way video with a child sexual abuse ......
-
REMOTE JUSTICE: CONFRONTING THE USE OF VIDEO TELECONFERENCE TESTIMONY IN MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL TRIALS.
...practically unattainable." Bordeaux, 400 F.3d. at 555. (93.) Bordeaux, 400 F.3d. at 555 (citing Turning Bear, 357 F.3d. at 737). (94.) 376 P.3d 184 (N.M. (95.) Id. at 193-95. (96.) Id. at 195. (97.) MASS. CONST. art. XII, pt. 1. Article 12 confrontation protection has been commonly invoked ......
-
Before You Accept That Friend Request or Publish That Post:, Ethical Issues for Consideration in Social Media Interaction
...news/article/oops._juror_calls_DEFENDANT_GUILTY_ON_FACEBOOK_ THOUGH_VERDICT_ISNT_IN. [42] State v. Thomas, 2016-NMSC-024, 376 P.3d 184 (N.M. 2016); David L. Hudson Jr., Don't Get Too Friendly: New Mexico High Court Urges Judges to be Discreet on Social Media, A.B.A. J., Sept. 2016, availabl......
-
THE ROBED TWEETER: TWO JUDGES' VIEWS ON PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
...conduct, especially on social media, "can easily be misconstrued and create an appearance of impropriety") (quoting State v. Thomas, 376 P.3d 184, 198 (N.M. (40.) Id. at 154 ("[T]here is nothing wrong with a judge sharing true and publicly available information about proceedings via social ......
-
Colorado Supreme Court Colorado Judicial Ethics Advisory Board (cjeab)
...jurisdictions have determined that judges should attempt to reduce the danger by using protective privacy settings. See State v. Thomas, 376 P.3d 184,199 (NM 2016) ("Judges should make use of privacy settings to protect their online presence but should also consider any statement posted onl......