Trujillo, Casey {44} We next consider Defendant's argument that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to interview, secure the presence of, or secure a continuance until such time as Canas could be located. Chris was a. See Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, 51, 124 N.M. 333, 950 P.2d 776 (holding that a conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree depraved-mind murder could not stand under current case law because conspiracy requires both intent to agree and intent to commit the offense which is the object of the conspiracy and depraved-mind murder is an unintentional killing resulting from highly reckless behavior); cf. Trujillo found that something when he got. In that case, we ultimately allowed the admission of Ortiz's out-of-court statement under Rule 11-803(X), not on the merits, but because the defendant in that case did not argue against the use of that rule. Experience . On November 13, 1997, this Court filed its opinion in Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, 51, 124 N.M. 333, 950 P.2d 776, holding that conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder is not a cognizable crime in New Mexico. {80} We have said-and as a general matter I agree-that we should defer to the discretion of the trial judge on evidentiary matters. Learn more about merges. {25} In order to convict Defendant of first-degree depraved-mind murder as a principal, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime: (1)The defendant discharged a firearm several times from the balcony of an apartment dwelling; (2)The defendant's act caused the death of Javier Mendez; (3)The act of the defendant was greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind without regard for human life; (4)The defendant knew that his act was greatly dangerous to the lives of others; (5)This happened in New Mexico on or about the 3rd day of July, 1997. Q. New Mexico State Police now say Rivera, who was 19 years old at the time, was kidnapped and killed by her ex-husband, Christopher Trujillo, with the help of his cousin Anselmo "Chemo" Ortiz. None of those factors is present in this case. The evidence at trial revealed that shots were fired from an apartment balcony downward into a courtyard area. However, [a]n error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment. Id. In this situation the use of Rule 11-803(X) seems contrary to its purpose, and allows the State to avoid the requirements of the hearsay rule and its normal exceptions. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. {59} Defendant next claims that the prosecutor improperly injected his own opinion during closing arguments on the definition of at for shooting at a dwelling or occupied building charges. Although accessory liability might make Defendant legally culpable whether or not he fired the fatal shots, I think it is fair to say that most people would view a shooter who missed his target less culpable than one who slays his target. Accordingly, we hold that serious youthful offenders convicted of first-degree murder shall be allowed to invoke this Court's mandatory jurisdiction under Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution and Rule 12-102(A)(1). RESET. See the links below for more info. {52} When an issue has not been properly preserved by a timely objection at trial, we have discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error. Refine Your Search Results All Filters 1 Christopher D Trujillo, 57 Resides in Las Cruces, NM Related To Stephanie Trujillo, Rudy Trujillo, Johnny Trujillo, Olga Trujillo {22} Defendant next argues that insufficient evidence supports his conviction for first-degree depraved-mind murder on either a principal or accessory liability theory. Based on these facts, we find that there are equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness to make this statement admissible under Rule 11-803(X) and conclude that the trial court's determination that the evidence was admissible was not erroneous, arbitrary, or unwarranted. Search Inmate Profiles (MOST POPULAR) I agree that Ortiz's fear of retaliation shows that he has valid reasons for being less than candid about his cousin's and Defendant's involvement in the shooting at trial. Majority Opinion, 58. It could have gone either way, and again, the prejudice to the defendant, I just don't see it. We agree that viewed in the context of the entire record, there is nothing to indicate that had the July booking photograph been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. As you look at Silly here in the courtroom today, is his skin-the skin on his face the same or different than it was back then? Attended New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA in (1998-2000). The Court stated that [t]he attempt to disarm [d]efendant, the elapse of time between the initial random shooting and the shot fired during the struggle, the apparent change in [d]efendant's intent when he stopped the random shooting and returned to his house, all lead us to conclude there was no evidence that [d]efendant's initial depraved-mind action caused the victim's death. Id. Chris Trujillo has been working as a Program Analyst at Los Alamos National laboratory for . However, the following excerpt preceded both of those identified by Defendant and clearly demonstrates that Ortega identified the Defendant as the second shooter without improper testimony from the prosecutor: Q. Family and friends can send flowers and/or light a candle as a loving gesture for their loved one. . In contrast to his earlier jazz and funk inspired playing, Osbourne's band was more straightforward to hard rock and metal. 2. Mexico City. Ortega testified that he heard someone on the balcony ask them what they were doing in their barrio-meaning the Barelas barrio-and that he was talking to Canas, Ortega and Mendez, all Juaritos. [A] non-jurisdictional claim not raised in the lower court is not properly reviewable on appeal. State v. Burdex, 100 N.M. 197, 201, 668 P.2d 313, 317 (Ct.App.1983) (finding defendant's constitutional claim of cruel and unusual punishment was not asserted at the trial court and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal because such a claim is non-jurisdictional).4 We therefore review Defendant's claim for fundamental error. {7} Defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced for first-degree murder as a serious youthful offender pursuant to NMSA 1978, 31-18-15.3(D) (1993), which allows a district court to sentence the offender to less than, but not exceeding, the mandatory term for an adult. NMSA 1978, 31-18-14(A) (1993) grants the district court discretion in sentencing minors who have been convicted of a capital felony: [I]f the defendant has not reached the age of majority at the time of the commission of the capital felony for which he was convicted, he may be sentenced to life imprisonment but shall not be punished by death. (Emphasis added.) The United States Supreme Court has held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. {33} Defendant was charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit a first-degree depraved-mind murder. In other words, [t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Brazeal, 109 N.M. at 757-58, 790 P.2d at 1038-39 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. He earned his wings too soon on May 4, 2021. We do not address this argument since we have reversed Defendant's convictions as to all charges relating to shooting at a dwelling or occupied building. And then who took the gun away from Charlie? Nearly 24% of New Mexicans rely on SNAP, the highest rate in the . Chris Trujillo is a provider established in Albuquerque, New Mexico and his medical specialization is Pharmacist. The trial court's determination of these questions will not be disturbed unless its ruling is arbitrary, capricious, or beyond reason. Id. (emphasis omitted). Contact. Id. Cheryl Trujillo, 92 years old, currently living in Albuquerque, NM. Prosecutors say he and Christopher Trujillo kidnapped and murdered Cindy near Bernal in 2012. Christine Trujillo ( Democratic Party) is a member of the New Mexico House of Representatives, representing District 25. Q. If counsel had questioned Ortega about this statement on the stand and he had denied making it, Defendant's theory of the case could have been weakened. Finally, we find there was little danger that Ortiz misjudged, misinterpreted, or misunderstood what he saw that evening because there were no impediments to his perception and because he was present throughout the event. Christopher Trujillo in New Mexico 283 people named Christopher Trujillo found in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and 6 other cities. View Verna T. Background Search . The dissent agrees that as a general matter we should defer to the discretion of the trial judge on evidentiary matters, but argues that [s]uch deference has less force in this case, where it is less than clear from the record that the trial court relied upon Rule 11-803(X) in its ruling. Dissent 80. 4. Thus, we do not address Defendant's double jeopardy argument. Chris TRUJILLO, Defendant-Appellant. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). He was born in Los Padilla's, New Mexico to Alfonso and Valentina Sosa, who proceeded him in death. See State v. Mora, 1997-NMSC-060, 47 n. 1, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789 (finding that defendant did not preserve the confrontation issue for appellate review because he did not timely object to the admission of [the deceased witness's] statement on confrontation grounds, nor did he timely object on general constitutional grounds); cf. Defendant properly preserved this issue by a timely objection at trial. The second reference came in the middle of his argument about the consistent statements of Ortega and Ortiz: You'd expect two completely different stories if we believe this theory that everyone in gangs lies. {61} Defendant next asserts that the multiple conspiracy charges and convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause where there was no evidence of any agreement, let alone separate agreements to support separate charges. In this vein, Ortiz's ranking out of the Barelas gang certainly provided a plausible explanation for the start of the quarrel. No. The agreement need not be verbal, but may be shown to exist by acts which demonstrate that the alleged co-conspirator knew of and participated in the scheme. The jury had testimony from two other eyewitnesses, Ortiz and Ortega, that support its findings of guilt. Request Quote . {47} We consider the entire proceeding as a whole and judge any claim of ineffectiveness on whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. State v. Richardson, 114 N.M. 725, 727, 845 P.2d 819, 821 (Ct.App.1992) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. Chris Rembert, jr., Pensacola Catholic (Florida) Rembert was one of the top second basemen in the Sunshine State as a sophomore, recording a .410 batting average with 32 hits, 22 RBIs and five home runs. He stated that Mendez answered, We could be anywhere we want, Juaritos, and immediately thereafter shots were fired down at them from the balcony. {1} Defendant Chris Trujillo was convicted of first-degree depraved-mind murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree depraved-mind murder, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit aggravated battery, conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (great bodily harm), conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (resulting in injury), shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (no injury), and conspiracy to commit shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (no injury).1 The jury found Defendant not guilty of aggravated battery, aggravated assault, shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (great bodily injury), and shooting at a dwelling or occupied building (resulting in injury).