State v. Balderama

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Mexico reviewed Valente Balderama's conviction for first-degree deliberate-intent murder. It held that expert neuropsychological testimony concerning neurological deficits, impulsivity, and difficulty planning was relevant to whether Balderama formed deliberate intent, even though it did not establish an inability to deliberate. The court also upheld admission of the victim's statement as an excited utterance but directed the trial court on retrial to consider whether it constituted inadmissible character evidence, and it remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. The challenge was preserved because the substance and purpose of the proposed testimony were made known or were apparent to the trial court, the ruling affected a substantial right, and a formal exception was unnecessary.
2. Expert testimony about a defendant's neurological condition, impulsiveness, and difficulty planning is relevant and admissible to assist the jury in determining whether the defendant actually formed the deliberate intent required for first-degree murder, even when the evidence does not establish an inability to form deliberate intent and therefore does not support a diminished-capacity instruction.
3. The exclusion of Dr. Caplan's testimony was not harmless because there was a reasonable possibility that the testimony could have affected the jury's choice between first- and second-degree murder.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the victim's statement that Balderama had held her for three days and prevented her from using the telephone as an excited utterance.
5. The trial court must determine on retrial whether the victim's statement is inadmissible character evidence under Rules 11-404(B) and 11-403.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by sua sponte excluding expert testimony concerning Balderama's neurological deficits, impulsiveness, and difficulty planning as relevant to whether he actually formed the deliberate intent required for first-degree murder.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the victim's out-of-court statement as an excited utterance.
3. Whether the victim's statement was inadmissible character evidence under Rules 11-404(B) and 11-403.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded