State of New Mexico v. Jerome Lynn "Lenny" Holly

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed Jerome Lynn Holly’s convictions for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. The court held that trial courts should apply the ABA standard when evaluating potentially prejudicial mid-trial publicity, including determining whether the publicity is inherently prejudicial and, when appropriate, questioning jurors about exposure. Although the trial court should have conducted a jury canvass, the court found any error harmless and rejected Holly’s remaining claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel and polygraph testimony.

Holdings

1. When alerted to mid-trial publicity that may be prejudicial, a trial court should apply the ABA three-step approach: determine whether the publicity is inherently prejudicial, canvass the jury if serious potential prejudice exists, and individually voir dire any juror shown to have been exposed. The defendant need not first produce evidence of actual exposure, but bears the burden of showing that the publicity was inherently prejudicial.
2. The newspaper article was the type of mid-trial publicity that justified an inference of prejudice and warranted jury canvassing under the newly adopted ABA standard, but the trial court's failure to canvass the jury was harmless in this case.
3. Defendant's ineffective-assistance claim failed because he showed neither deficient performance nor prejudice from counsel's failure to investigate the alleged recordings or interview the witness more thoroughly.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the State's polygraph examiner's testimony where Defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the expert and present rebuttal expert testimony.
5. No fundamental error occurred because any exposure to Defendant in handcuffs was unclear and, if it occurred, was inadvertent or insignificant; Defendant also acquiesced in the corrective action taken by the trial court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to canvass or voir dire the jury after a prominently published mid-trial newspaper article reported that Defendant had pleaded guilty to related charges and included prejudicial information about the shootings.
2. Whether the trial court's handling of potentially undisclosed or inaudible recordings supported Defendant's ineffective-assistance claim.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from the State's polygraph examiner.
4. Whether possible inadvertent juror exposure to Defendant in handcuffs constituted fundamental error requiring reversal.

Disposition

affirmed