State v. Anderson

536 P.3d 453

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Joe ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellee.

NO. S-1-SC-39744

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Filing Date: May 22, 2023

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General, Charles J. Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Kimberly M. Chavez Cook, Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, Fenderson Firm, Keren H. Fenderson, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee

ZAMORA, Justice.

{1} In this opinion concerning pretrial detention, we explain our reasons for issuing an order reversing the district court's denial of the State's motion for pretrial detention of Defendant Joe Anderson, charged with first-degree murder pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-1(A)(1) (1994). Under this Court's interpretation of Article II, Section 13 of the New Mexico Constitution, a defendant charged with a felony can be detained without bail prior to trial if the State demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the defendant is dangerous and (2) no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any individual or the community. See State v. Mascareno-Haidle , 2022-NMSC-015, ¶ 27, 514 P.3d 454 ; Rule 5-409(F)(4) NMRA. In this case, Defendant's dangerousness is not disputed. At issue is the second prong of the pretrial detention inquiry: whether the State met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions could reasonably protect any individual or the community.

{2} The State presented reliable evidence that Defendant had an extensive criminal history that included crimes of violence, failures to appear, violations of probation, new charges while on probation, committing felonies while incarcerated, knowingly possessing a firearm while a felon, and noncompliance with pretrial services requirements. This evidence amply satisfied the State's burden to prove that no release conditions would reasonably protect the community. We hold that the district court abused its discretion when it denied the State's motion without properly weighing the required factors under Rule 5-409(F)(6).

I. BACKGROUND

A. State's Evidence in Support of Pretrial Detention

{3} In support of its motion for pretrial detention, the State tendered documentary exhibits, which included a list of Defendant's criminal cases printed from New Mexico court records, a public safety assessment (PSA) of Defendant completed by the Second Judicial District Court's pretrial services division, numerous case details of court actions in Defendant's previous criminal cases, and criminal complaints filed in two cases. Defendant did not object to these exhibits. During the hearing, the State also made several proffers, as is permitted in a pretrial detention hearing. See State ex rel. Torrez v. Whitaker , 2018-NMSC-005, ¶ 110, 410 P.3d 201.

1. Evidence supporting the current first-degree murder charge

{4} Defendant is charged with first-degree murder over a simple property dispute. According to the criminal complaint, when the victim did not return Defendant's motorcycle "as promised," Defendant hunted down the victim and shot him in the street. Defendant is alleged to have had an accomplice on this mission who took possession of the motorcycle as the victim lay dying. Defendant is alleged to have then returned to the crime scene and chatted with police, presenting himself as a concerned citizen and offering the police his phone number.

{5} The evidence linking Defendant to the crime is the following. Police found the victim's body in the middle of the street in the early morning hours of August 6, 2022. The victim had been shot while driving the motorcycle, one of his legs was burned by the hot exhaust pipe, and gasoline had leaked onto the victim's body. Police set up a perimeter around the crime scene. A group of four people, two men and two women, approached an officer who was guarding the perimeter and asked the officer about the identity of the victim. One of the men—"very distinctive looking" with a shaved head and tattoos covering his head, neck, hands, and arms—gave the officer his phone number and told the officer to " ‘get ahold of us anytime’ " with more information about the victim. One of the women in the group, as it later turned out, was the victim's girlfriend.

{6} The victim's girlfriend told police that she was with Defendant at the crime scene when the group spoke with the officer and that Defendant was the man who gave the officer his phone number. She stated that her boyfriend, the victim, had borrowed a " ‘Harley-kind’ " of motorcycle from Defendant. She told police that Defendant lived in an apartment on Vail Avenue, just one street north of the crime scene.

{7} Surveillance video from a parking lot near the crime scene showed a white Ford Expedition SUV pulling in behind the victim as he got on a " ‘Harley-style’ " motorcycle. The victim looked back at the SUV and fled on the motorcycle out of camera view while the driver and passenger got out of the SUV and ran after the victim. The driver "appear[ed] to be holding an object in his right hand." Within a minute, the driver returned to camera view, got into the SUV, and drove away. Meanwhile, the passenger could be seen in another surveillance video attempting to start the motorcycle several times before slowly walking the motorcycle down the street.

{8} Police observed a white Ford Expedition SUV in the parking lot of the apartment complex on Vail Avenue where the victim's girlfriend said that Defendant lived. The SUV had a University of New Mexico license plate, heavy window tint, and "distinctive black rims." Police confirmed through Motor Vehicle Division records and other sources that Defendant was "associated with" several vehicles including motorcycles and a white Ford Expedition SUV.

{9} Lapel camera footage showed that the man who approached the police officer and offered his phone number had the same build and physical characteristics as the man seen in the surveillance video driving the SUV from the parking lot near the crime scene. In both videos, the man was wearing identical clothing, including a baseball shirt, long shorts, and distinctive black and white sneakers.

{10} A confidential source contacted police with information about the details of the crime. The source stated that Defendant "lent [the victim] his motorcycle" and "[the victim] did not return the motorcycle as promised." The source stated that Defendant's girlfriend told Defendant where the victim was, whereupon Defendant and another individual "chased after [the victim]." Defendant shot "[the victim] multiple times in the street," and "the motorcycle was taken away from the area." The confidential source also described Defendant's vehicle as a white Ford Expedition SUV with a University of New Mexico license plate and custom rims and tires, which aligned with the appearance of the vehicle in the surveillance video and the vehicle that police observed in the parking lot of the apartment complex on Vail Avenue.

{11} The manager of the apartment complex on Vail Avenue confirmed that Defendant had recently lived in one of the apartments and that the phone number given to the police officer at the crime scene was Defendant's phone number. However, by the time police spoke to the manager, Defendant and his girlfriend had moved out of the apartment, and the manager did not know where they had gone.

2. Defendant's criminal history

{12} Defendant's criminal history reflects near constant involvement in the criminal justice system over nineteen years. The State presented evidence of this criminal history in the form of printouts of publicly available court records detailing the actions taken in each of Defendant's cases.

{13} Defendant's criminal history began in 2003 when Defendant pleaded no contest to aggravated battery on a household member, child abuse, and resisting or evading an officer in case number D-202-CR-2003-00024. Defendant successfully completed probation in that case in September 2006.

{14} In February 2007, Defendant was indicted on four felonies in case number D-202-CR-2007-00643: receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle; possessing a controlled substance; conspiring to commit receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle; and tampering with evidence. Defendant failed to appear twice in that case, first to a pretrial proceeding and then to the trial itself. After Defendant failed to appear at the trial, a bench warrant was issued and was outstanding for nearly one month before Defendant turned himself in. Despite Defendant's failures to appear, the district court accepted a plea to a conditional discharge on March 10, 2009, and ordered Defendant to complete twelve months of supervised probation. Just three months later, the State filed a motion to revoke probation. A bench warrant was issued and was outstanding for twenty days before Defendant was arrested. At a probation violation hearing on July 1, 2009, Defendant admitted to violating probation. The district court found a probation violation and then reinstated his probation.

{15} While Defendant was on probation in case number D-202-CR-2007-00643, he was charged on June 18, 2009, with armed robbery in a different county, in case number D-1329-CR-2009-00289. Despite his pending armed robbery charge, the district court in case number D-202-CR-2007-00643 granted Defendant's conditional discharge on March 26, 2010. The State voluntarily dismissed the armed robbery charge approximately three months later on June 18, 2010.

{16} Five months later, Defendant shot and killed a man. See State v. Anderson , A-1-CA-35876, mem. op. ¶¶ 2, 8, 2019 WL 2992004 (N.M. Ct. App. June 17, 2019) (nonprecedential). For that incident, Defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, tampering with evidence, conspiracy to tamper with evidence, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and false imprisonment in case number D-202-CR-2010-05929. The...