State v. Word
| Decision Date | 25 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-37612,A-1-CA-37612 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LONDON JAMES WORD a/k/a LONDEN J. WORD a/k/a LONDON WORD a/k/a CHUBBS WORD a/k/a LONDON J. WOOD, 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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 BERNALILLO COUNTY
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
{1} Defendant London Word appeals his convictions for one count of second-degree murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-1(B) (1994), and two counts of tampering with evidence, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-5 (2003), contending that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress: (1) evidence obtained from the warrantless search of the Victim's apartment; (2) statements Defendant made at the police station; and (3) statements Defendant made during his post-trial sixty-day diagnostic evaluation. We affirm.
{2} Early Monday morning, November 14, 2016, Defendant broke into his mother's (Cannon) home and told her he was supposed to give drugs to his "homeboy" (the Victim) in exchange for staying at the Victim's apartment. Defendant said that he and the Victim argued and fought because the Victim wanted more drugs than Defendant provided. Defendant stated that he "cut" the Victim and thought the Victim was dead. Cannon called the Albuquerque Police Department after Defendant left and stated that Defendant was causing a disturbance at her home and she wanted him removed. After Defendant left but before police arrived, Cannon called police again after seeing Defendant repeatedly driving in front of Cannon's home and eventually parking two houses away from hers.
{3} Officers Jonathan McDonnell and Carlton Adams were dispatched to Cannon's home in reference to a possible domestic dispute. While en route to Cannon's home, Officer McDonnell discovered Defendant had an outstanding petty misdemeanor warrant. The officers saw Defendant walking by a vehicle parked not far from Cannon's home that matched the description of the vehicle provided by Cannon.
{4} The officers identified themselves and asked Defendant if he would be willing to speak to them and Defendant agreed. Unaware that Defendant told Cannon that he had stabbed someone, the officers asked Defendant where he was going and what had gone on between himself and Cannon that morning. Defendant responded that they had a rocky relationship and that he had stopped by Cannon's house to use her phone. Officer McDonnell asked Defendant about the lacerations and abrasions he noticed on his knuckles. Defendant responded that he had gotten into an altercation with several individuals on Central Avenue the night before. The officers advised Defendant to avoid going to Cannon's home and to take care of his outstanding misdemeanor warrant, and allowed Defendant to drive off.
{5} Cannon then approached the two officers, who had not yet left the area. Cannon told the officers that when Defendant broke into her home, he was screaming and crying, had blood all over his hands and feet, and had told her that he had killed someone at 528 Mesilla St. SE in the "bottom left" apartment, which was later identified as apartment A. Officer McDonnell radioed for a welfare check for the apartment at 528 Mesilla Street S.E., and Officer Adams left to locate Defendant.
{6} Officer Wolffbrandt was one of the officers dispatched to conduct the welfare check on the apartment located at 528 Mesilla Street S.E. The officers knocked and announced their presence and entered the apartment. Once inside the apartment, Officer Wolffbrandt looked into the bedroom and observed blood "all across the floor." He did not enter the bedroom to avoid disturbing the blood on the floor and itsevidentiary value. When he looked into the bedroom, Officer Wolffbrandt could only see one corner of the closet and "did not see anything that appeared to be a body." The officers then walked out of the apartment.
{7} About ten minutes later, concerned that he had not properly checked the closet, Officer Wolffbrandt reentered the apartment because he thought that "there could be still be a person inside that room, whether unconscious or otherwise." Officer Wolffbrandt discovered a body later identified as that of Lucas Bazan in the closet.
{8} Meanwhile, Officer Adams located Defendant outside his car, which had run out of gas, at the intersection of Morris Street N.E. and Domingo Road N.E. (second curbside encounter). Defendant opened his driver's side door as Officer McDonnell walked towards him. Officer Adams stood at the front of Defendant's vehicle and neither officer drew their firearms. Using a conversational tone, Officer McDonnell informed Defendant that since their last encounter, Cannon told them that he had entered her house and "made some statements as to hurting people last night [near] Mesilla." When asked if that sounded familiar, Defendant responded that he did not know where Mesilla was. Officer McDonnell asked Defendant what happened between himself and Cannon earlier that morning. During the first three minutes of the encounter, Defendant stood outside his car, eating chips while responding to questions. Defendant then sat down in the driver's seat facing Officer McDonnell with his feet outside the car for the remainder of the curbside encounter. Officer McDonnell again asked Defendant how he had gotten the injuries on his hand. Defendant responded that he had gotten into an altercation with several strangers the night before near Central Avenue and San Mateo Boulevard.
{9} Officer McDonnell then received instructions to transport Defendant to the police department because detectives wanted to talk with Defendant. Officer McDonnell told Defendant that he needed to come with him to the police station to speak with detectives. Defendant walked to Officer McDonnell's car without incident where he was placed in handcuffs and driven to the police station. While en route to the police station, Officer McDonnell was informed that a body had been located in the apartment.
{10} Detectives Matthew Caplan and T. Juarez interviewed Defendant. The interview began as follows:
{11} Detective Caplan next asked Defendant for identifying information including his name, date of birth, phone number, address, and social security number. Detective Caplan then advised Defendant that the police were investigating a homicide and informed Defendant of his Miranda rights. Defendant answered the detectives' questions during which he admitted to stabbing the Victim multiple times and "slash[ing]" the Victim's throat.
{12} Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress physical and testimonial evidence, including (1) evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the Victim's apartment; and (2) the statements Defendant made at the police station contending that the Miranda warnings given to him were ineffective under Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).
{13} After presiding over a hearing on the motions, the district court ruled that Defendant lacked standing to challenge the warrantless search of the apartment and alternatively, that the emergency assistance exception to the warrant requirement applied to both of the warrantless entries into the apartment. With regard to testimonial evidence, the district court ruled that Defendant's statements to Officers McDonnell and Adams during the second curbside encounter began as a "consensual meeting," but transformed into a custodial interrogation when the officers began to question Defendant about the injuries to his hands. However, the district court did not suppress the statements Defendant made to the detectives at the police station, explaining that unlike the facts in Seibert, where a full confession was obtained prior to the defendant's Miranda warning, the detectives in this case only asked Defendant for identifying information prior to informing Defendant of his Miranda rights.
{14} A jury convicted Defendant of second-degree murder and two counts of tampering with evidence. This appeal followed. Because this is a memorandum opinion, we reserve discussion of additional facts where necessary to our analysis.
{15} "In reviewing a [district] court's denial of a motion to suppress, [appellate courts] observe the distinction between factual determinations[,] which are subject to a substantial evidence standard of review and application of law to the facts, which is subject to de novo review." State v. Hubble, 2009-NMSC-014, ¶ 5, 146 N.M. 70, 206 P.3d 579 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). "We view the facts in the manner most favorable to the prevailing party and defer to the district court's findings of fact if substantial evidence exists to support those findings." State v. Urioste, 2002-NMSC-023, ¶ 6, 132 N.M. 592, 52 P.3d 964.
{16} Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial