State v. Porras-Gonzales ( 2024 )

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citation of unpublished decisions.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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
No. A-1-CA-41412
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY PORRAS-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY
John P, Sugg, District Court Judge
Raúl Torrez, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Mark A. Peralta-Silva, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
IVES, Judge.
{1} This matter was submitted to this Court on the brief in chief pursuant to the
Administrative Order for Appeals in Criminal Cases from the Second, Eleventh, and
Twelfth Judicial District Courts in In re Pilot Project for Criminal Appeals, No. 2022-002,
effective November 1, 2022. Having considered the brief in chief, concluding the briefing
submitted to this Court provides no possibility for reversal, and determining that this
case is appropriate for resolution on Track 1 as defined in that order, we affirm for the
following reasons.
{2} Defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence entered by the district court
adjudicating him guilty of one count of second degree murder and two counts of
tampering with evidence. [3 RP 676] Defendant first argues there was insufficient
evidence for the jury to convict him of one of the tampering with evidence charges that
related to the disposal of bullets of the kind fired by the gun Defendant used to kill
Briyan Alvarado (Victim) in this case. [BIC 5, 8]
{3} “The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either
a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” State v. Montoya, 2015-
NMSC-010, ¶ 52, 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The
reviewing court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict,
indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of
the verdict.” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176.
We disregard all evidence and inferences that support a different result. State v. Rojo,
1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829.
{4} “Jury instructions become the law of the case against which the sufficiency of the
evidence is to be measured.” State v. Smith, 1986-NMCA-089, ¶ 7, 104 N.M. 729, 726
P.2d 883. Here, the district court instructed the jury that the State had to prove that (i)
Defendant hid or placed ammunition; and (ii) by doing so, Defendant intended to
prevent the apprehension, prosecution, or conviction for the crime of second degree
murder. [3 RP 656] Defendant challenges both elements, contending there was
insufficient evidence that he hid or placed the ammunition or that he had the requisite
intent. [BIC 7-8]
{5} According to the brief in chief, there was testimony before the jury that Defendant
shot Victim at a stoplight in Ruidoso while in the passenger seat of a vehicle. [BIC 2]
Defendant’s friend and the driver of the vehicle, Bryten Villa, then drove off. [Id.]
Defendant disposed of the handgun in Devil’s Canyon outside of Ruidoso. [BIC 3] Mr.
Villa testified that he was aware Defendant normally kept the handgun in his room and
assisted law enforcement in arranging a recorded call in which Defendant “made
several incriminating statements about shooting [Victim] and items related to the
handgun.” [BIC 3] The ammunition was found in the trash can in Defendant’s room
along with documents related to the handgun, and the State introduced photos of the
ammunition in the trash can. [BIC 4, 7] Police did not locate the ammunition in the
bedroom until a third search of the residence and only after the call between Defendant
and Mr. Villa. [BIC 7] During the call, Defendant “asked if the police had searched ‘the
trash and everything.’” [Id.] Defendant also stated: “Don’t tell the cops anything.” [BIC 9]
{6} We conclude that this was sufficient for the jury to find the necessary elements to
convict Defendant of tampering with evidence. The jury could have reasonably inferred
from the evidence that Defendant placed the ammunition from the firearm that had been
used to kill Victim in the trash can in his room to avoid apprehension. See State v.
Ramirez, 2018-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 14-15, 409 P.3d 902 (concluding there was sufficient
evidence to connect the defendant to the murder weapon and to support his conviction
for tampering with evidence because the weapon was recovered “not far” from where
police originally encountered the defendant and the weapon fired the same ammunition
as the casings found at the crime scene).
{7} Defendant next takes issue with three statements made by the prosecutor in
closing. [BIC 10-14] All three statements occurred during the State’s rebuttal. [BIC 10-
12] First, the prosecutor told the jury to “take a breath” and “get back to reality as to
what the evidence is.” [BIC 10] Next, the prosecutor essentially told the jury that
Defendant’s counsel had acknowledged guilt as to the lesser charge of shooting at or
from a motor vehicle, which was later vacated on double jeopardy grounds because the
jury also convicted on second-degree murder. [BIC 5, 11] Lastly, in response to
Defendant’s counsel’s statement that the State had failed to call a DNA expert, the
prosecutor responded by telling the jury that neither party had requested a DNA expert.
[BIC 12, 14]
{8} As to the first statement, Defendant objected and the district court sustained the
objection. [BIC 4] As to the other two statements, Defendant moved for a mistrial, but
both times the district court denied the motion. [BIC 5] We review all three statements
under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Torres, 2005-NMCA-070, ¶ 42, 137
N.M. 607, 113 P.3d 877 (“Because [the d]efendant objected to the statements, we
review for abuse of discretion.”); State v. Henderson, 2006-NMCA-059, ¶ 22, 139 N.M.
595, 136 P.3d 1005 (“We review the refusal of the trial court to grant [the d]efendant’s
motion for a mistrial for an abuse of discretion.”). “We will find an abuse of discretion if a
court’s ruling is clearly untenable or contrary to logic and reason.” State v. Sena, 2020-
NMSC-011, ¶ 15, 470 P.3d 227 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
{9} When reviewing error in closing arguments, we look to the following three factors:
(1) whether the statement invades some distinct constitutional protection; (2) whether
the statement is isolated and brief, or repeated and pervasive; and (3) whether the
statement is invited by the defense. Id. ¶ 16. As to the first factor, Defendant
“acknowledges that the only statement that may invade a constitutional protection is the
comment regarding neither party subpoenaing a DNA expert which implicitly shifted the
burden by telling the jury that the defense did not present evidence.” [BIC 12] In State v.
Pennington, this Court held that a prosecutor’s comment that the defendant “could have
subpoenaed his own medical experts” did not shift the State’s burden to the defendant.
1993-NMCA-037, ¶ 25, 115 N.M. 372, 851 P.2d 494. Instead, this Court interpreted the
comment as targeting the defendant’s failure to call witnesses who may have supported
his theory of the case and concluded that “[s]uch comments are permissible.” Id.; see
also State v. Estrada, 2001-NMCA-034, ¶ 34, 130 N.M. 358, 24 P.3d 793 (concluding
there was no prosecutorial misconduct “[b]ecause comments on the defendant’s failure
to produce witnesses are allowed”). Because Pennington is applicable to the State’s
comment regarding the DNA expert, none of these statements made during the State’s
rebuttal implicate a distinct constitutional protection.
{10} “Absent a constitutional violation, we look at the length and repetition of the
comment to determine whether it was so pervasive as to clearly distort the body of
evidence before the jury.” State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 38, 147 N.M. 351, 223
P.3d 348. We fail to see how the three comments were so pervasive as to clearly distort
the body of evidence before the jury. The first comment explicitly directed the jury to
consider the evidence. The second statement appears to just be a dispute over the
semantics of Defendant’s argument, which was that the jury should convict Defendant
of the lesser offense if they thought he was the shooter. And the third was a statement
of fact that neither party called a DNA expert. None of these three comments have
anything in common with one another nor could any of them have been considered “a
return to an impermissible theme from before.” Id.{11} Regarding whether these statements were invited, the first comment appears to
have been a response to Defendant’s closing statement in which Defendant attempted
to implicate Mr. Villa as the shooter. [BIC 4] The second comment also appears to have
been a response to a statement in Defendant’s closing related to his theory of the case,
albeit a mischaracterization of that theory. [BIC 11] Lastly, Defendant acknowledges
that the comment concerning the DNA expert was in response to a statement made
during Defendant’s closing. See id. ¶ 33 (“[W]e are least likely to find error where the
defense has ‘opened the door’ to the prosecutor’s comments by its own argument or
reference to facts not in evidence.”).
{12} We note that, in addition to sustaining the first objection and denying the two
motions for a mistrial, the district court instructed the jury to rely on their memories of
the evidence after the second comment. See State v. Torres, 2012-NMSC-016, ¶ 8, 279
P.3d 740 (“Because the trial court is better able to gauge the magnitude of objectionable
comments, we afford it broad discretion in choosing the appropriate way to respond.”);
Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 25 (“[A] trial court can correct any impropriety by striking
statements and offering curative instructions. And should all the preceding safeguards
fail, the trial court retains the power to declare a mistrial.”). Consequently, after
considering the three factors, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion and appropriately handled the prosecutor’s comments in the State’s closing
statement.
{13} IT IS SO ORDERED.
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge
WE CONCUR:
SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge
KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge