State v. York
| Decision Date | 20 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. S-1-SC-36782,S-1-SC-36782 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM YORK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico 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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 Supreme Court.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Maha Khoury, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
{1} In this direct appeal, Defendant William York asks this Court to reverse his convictions of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Broadly, Defendant argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. In addition, Defendant asserts that the district court erred in admitting his co-defendant's alleged out-of-court accusation against him, admitting certain evidence of his drug use, excluding evidence of his co-defendant's guilty plea, instructing the jury on accomplice liability, and sentencing him in violation of the principles of double jeopardy. For the following reasons, we reject Defendant's arguments and affirm his convictions and sentences.
{2} Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and tampering with evidence. The events leading to the murder center on a dispute between Steve Maliq Swayne and Cory Coyner (Victim). The evidence showed that Defendant conspired with Swayne to kill Victim at Michele Freer's apartment. Both Swayne and Freer were indicted on counts of first-degree murder and pleaded to various crimes associated with the killing. Of the trio, only Defendant went to trial. The evidence tells the following story.
{3} Swayne was a drug dealer whose customers included Victim, Defendant, and Freer. According to the testimony of Victim's fiancé, there was a dispute between Swayne and Victim over a debt Swayne owed Victim. When Swayne failed to repay the debt, Victim stole a set of Swayne's guns.
{4} On the morning of the killing, Defendant and Swayne were at Freer's apartment. Victim stopped by the apartment to speak with Swayne and buy drugs for his friend, Nicole Chavez. According to Defendant, after Victim arrived, Swayne pulled Defendant into a bedroom and explained that Victim was the one who had stolen from him. Swayne then gave Defendant a gun and told him to accompany Victim on a drug deal. Freer testified that she heard Swayne tell Defendant, "You got this" or "You got it." Before leaving for the drug deal, Defendant pulled out the gun, fired in the direction of Victim's feet, and said, Defendant and Victim then left the apartment and joined Chavez, who was waiting for Victim in his truck.
{5} According to Chavez, Victim drove to a motel where he needed to "pick up something" for Swayne. Once Victim exited the vehicle, Defendant turned to Chavez and told her that he "didn't keep any witnesses." When Victim returned to the truck, Chavez noticed that Defendant had a gun in his lap. Defendant told police that he warned Victim not to do anything stupid and told him that if he did, Defendant would "put one in [him] real quick[.]" Chavez testified that on the way back to Freer's apartment, Defendant called Swayne and told him,
{6} According to Freer, when Victim and Defendant returned to her apartment Victim seemed "worried" and Defendant was "[p]hysically spastic." Freer testified that Defendant was aggravated and kept saying how much he liked Victim's truck. Victim asked Defendant not to take his truck, apologized to Swayne for stealing from him, and told the group that he was going to start school and start a new life. After Victim apologized, Freer noticed Swayne and Defendant make "noticeable" eye contact. She called the eye contact "an acknowledgement."
{7} Freer testified that Victim then asked to use the restroom, and Defendant followed behind him. Moments later, Freer heard a gunshot and Defendant returned from the bathroom demanding that everyone leave immediately and saying, "He's gone, let's go." Swayne responded, "Dude, dude, now?" Defendant, Swayne, and Freer left the apartment, piled into Victim's truck, and Defendant drove the group away.
{8} The jury convicted Defendant of first-degree, willful and deliberate murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-1(A)(1) (1994); conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-28-2 (1979); and tampering with evidence, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-5 (2003). Defendant appeals his convictions of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder pursuant to this Court's jurisdiction under Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution and Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA. As the questions of law presented in this appeal are sufficiently answered by New Mexico precedent, we exercise our discretion under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA to explain our conclusions by way of this non-precedential decision.
{9} Defendant makes a number of arguments on appeal. We first address his claims that the district court erred when it (A) admitted a statement allegedly made by his co-defendant in violation of Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause; (B) admitted Defendant's police interview over objection that it was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative; (C) excluded evidence that his co-defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the death of Victim; (D) instructed the jury on accomplice liability absent evidence to support an accomplice theory; and (E) "enhanced" Defendant's sentence for a crime resulting in the death of a human being in violation of his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. We then address Defendant's argument that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. In accordance with the applicable legal standards of review, our examination of the proceedings and evidence presented at trial leads us to reject Defendant's arguments on appeal and affirm his convictions and sentences.
{10} We turn first to Defendant's argument under the Confrontation Clause. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution "bars the 'admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.' " State v. Lopez, 2007-NMSC-037, ¶ 19, 142 N.M. 138, 164 P.3d 19 (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004)). Defendant asserts that his confrontation rights were violated when he was unable to cross-examine Swayne, his co-defendant, about what Swayne apparently told an investigating police officer about the murder.
{11} In order to assess whether the admission of Swayne's apparent statement to police violated Defendant's confrontation rights, we must unpack a question asked byOfficer Joshua Brown when he interviewed Defendant following the murder. The State introduced a redacted recording of that interview into evidence during Officer Brown's testimony. In the interview, Officer Brown asked, "[W]hy would they tell me that you were the trigger man?" Defendant's answer inferred that the term "they" in Officer Brown's question referred to Swayne and Freer. By asking why "they [would] tell me you were the trigger man," Officer Brown was implicitly saying that Swayne and Freer accused Defendant of the murder. Defendant argues that this implicit accusation was an out-of-court statement by a witness who did not testify (Swayne). Therefore, Defendant claims the admission of Officer Brown's question violated his right to confront Swayne at trial.
{12} We review claimed violations of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation de novo. State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 15, 275 P.3d 110. Because Defendant failed to adequately preserve this issue at trial, we review for fundamental error. See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8, 135 N.M. 621, 92 P.3d 633.
{13} Defendant did not preserve his argument under the Confrontation Clause because he failed to object specifically to the admission of Officer Brown's triggerman question on confrontation grounds. "In order to preserve an error for appeal, it is essential that the ground or grounds of the objection or motion be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial court to the claimed error or errors, and that a ruling thereon then be invoked." State v. Varela, 1999-NMSC-045, ¶ 25, 128 N.M. 454, 993 P.2d 1280 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Rule 12-321(A) NMRA (). At no point during the trial in this case did Defendant object to the particular portion of the interview when Officer Brown asked why "they" had called Defendant the trigger man. Instead, Defendant raised only general objections to the admission of the entire recorded interview, and he did so on three occasions.
{14} Defendant's first general objection came the day before the jury heard the recorded police interview. Defendant objected to the admission of the recording on hearsay grounds related to "probably like [twenty] or more statements" throughout the interview, including double hearsay within the officers' questions. The district court reviewed the interview recording and identified several issues from the bench, including a potential violation of the right of confrontation....
To continue reading
Request your trial