State of New Mexico v. Mario Perez Barrera

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed Mario Perez Barrera’s convictions for first-degree murder, armed robbery, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and felon in possession of a firearm. The court rejected claims concerning change of venue, admission of Barrera’s statement, late disclosure of shoes introduced into evidence, and sentencing for both murder and armed robbery. It held that the consular-notification claim was unpreserved, the Miranda waiver was valid, the late-disclosed evidence did not prejudice Barrera, and the opinion excerpt proceeds to analyze the double-jeopardy claim.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a change of venue because substantial evidence supported its determination, based on voir dire, that the selected jurors were capable of impartiality.
2. The State established by a preponderance of the evidence that Barrera knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, so the trial court properly denied suppression of his statement.
3. Barrera's booking question, 'Do I need an attorney?', was ambiguous and did not constitute a clear and unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel.
4. The court would not consider Barrera's consular-notification claim because he raised it for the first time on appeal and did not fairly invoke a ruling in the trial court; the claim also did not qualify for fundamental-error review.
5. The admission of the shoes did not warrant reversal because Barrera failed to show prejudice or that the trial court's opportunity to examine the shoes during a recess was an inadequate cure.
6. Sentences for first-degree felony murder and armed robbery did not violate double jeopardy because the conduct supporting the offenses was separate and distinct rather than unitary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Barrera's motion to change venue based on pretrial publicity.
2. Whether Barrera knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before giving his statement to police.
3. Whether Barrera's question during booking, 'Do I need an attorney?', sufficiently invoked his right to counsel.
4. Whether the court should consider Barrera's unpreserved claim that police violated his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
5. Whether the trial court erred by admitting shoes that the prosecution did not disclose until trial.
6. Whether imposing sentences for both first-degree felony murder and armed robbery violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the offenses arose from unitary conduct.

Disposition

affirmed