State v. Ortiz

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VICTOR ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellee

No. S-1-SC-37673

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

July 15, 2021

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

Cindy Leos, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Walter M. Hart III, Assistant Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

John Charles Bennett, Assistant Appellate Defender

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

DECISION

BACON, Justice.

{1} "Our resolution of this [interlocutory] appeal turns on the standard of review that applies to a district court's findings of fact concerning a motion to suppress evidence." State v. Martinez, 2018-NMSC-007, ¶ 1, 410 P.3d 186. Under Martinez, we "defer to the district court's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence and . . . view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party." Id. ¶ 3; see State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018, ¶ 10, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856. {2} Defendant Victor Ortiz faces an open charge of murder with a potential sentence of life imprisonment. On interlocutory appeal from the Second Judicial District, the State challenges the district court's grant of Defendant's motion to suppress all statements made during his custodial interrogation ("interview"). The State argues that the grant of Defendant's motion to suppress constituted clear error and requests this Court to reverse the district court's order. The State further argues that the district court lacked substantial evidence for its factual findings regarding Defendant's capacity to understand and waive his Miranda rights and that Defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of those rights.

{3} We reject both of the State's arguments and affirm the district court's grant of the motion to suppress. First, the record demonstrates that substantial evidence supported each of the district court's findings and the court properly applied the law to those findings. Second, the State did not meet its burden on appeal to show a lack of substantial evidence for the district court's findings adverse to the State's arguments. Because these issues are sufficiently addressed by New Mexico precedent, we exercise our discretion to resolve this case by way of a non-precedential decision under Rule 12-405(B)(1) NMRA.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Interview

{4} Defendant was arrested for the July 20, 2017, stabbing death of taxi driver Kahlil Jabbour. Defendant's arrest in the early hours of July 21, 2017, followed an approximately five-hour custodial interview in an Albuquerque Police Department (APD) substation, conducted primarily by Detective Leah Acata ("Acata"). At detectives' request, APD psychiatrist Dr. Nils Rosenbaum ("Rosenbaum") attended the interview and conducted initial questioning of Defendant "to provide an opinion regarding Defendant's capacity to participate in the interview." The audio-video recording of the interview was later entered as evidence at the suppression hearing and cited by the district court in its order.

{5} Before Miranda advisement and questioning began, Defendant told Detective Terra Juarez, "I'm just going to say a prayer, okay?" and began speaking aloud with eyes closed and head moving. Though much of Defendant's recorded speech at this point is unclear, audible portions include, "Lord Jesus . . . power and wisdom . . . for my words to come out right . . . you know the truth as well. . . ." Upon entry of Acata and Rosenbaum, Defendant did not change his demeanor or conduct, and there was no clear division between his prayer and the ensuing silence.

{6} Eventually Rosenbaum introduced himself and asked Defendant questions "to get a sense of how [Defendant was] doing and make sure [Defendant] sort of underst[ood] what[ was] going on." Asked if he had talked with a psychiatrist before, Defendant referenced "PTSD issues" and became emotional, describing himself as "upset" at having been "pushed away" from treatment. Defendant's emotions and pitch varied as he then referenced "trust issues [as] . . . I think I was told to go to Regional Trauma Center . . . memory's not too . . . memory's fucked . . . I went there, but it was closed because it was a Sunday." Rosenbaum asked whether Defendant had been hearing voices or wanting to harm himself. Defendant responded yes to both questions but explained that this had not happened in the previous twenty-four hours. Rosenbaum then concluded to the detectives, "I think you guys can ask him the questions and I can just chime in to make sure."

{7} Acata then advised Defendant of his Miranda rights, asking Defendant after each advisement if he understood the relevant right. Defendant replied "yes" to each while appearing to keep his eyes closed. Acata twice checked that Defendant was awake. When asked to explain each right, Defendant restated them but, as the district court found and the State does not contest, never made an express waiver of his rights.

{8} Over the course of the interview, Defendant focused on topics that were not obviously relevant to Acata's questions about the homicide. Defendant raised each of the following topics multiple times: "[T]he [Mexicans] at Burger King . . . killed two of my dogs"; "[A]pps on my phone are tracking me . . ."; "[Taxi drivers on walkie-talkies] said 'Greyhound has already left' . . . too much of a coincidence"; "How can the [finger]nail from the girl from Metro PC be in my driveway?"; and "[The Blacks and Mexicans] have to have a whiz kid to do this. . . . That's what I mean by the Kirk [neighborhood] is so organized[.]" Defendant's commentary included seemingly off-topic references to Laverne and Shirley, Tupac, Lil Wayne, the NAACP, the Illuminati, demons, devils, Star Wars, I, Robot, and intruders tampering with his marijuana plants and home stereo.

{9} Over the course of the interview, Acata asked Defendant numerous times, "How does that tie to tonight?" On multiple other occasions, Defendant noted that he became "sidetracked" or asked, "where was I?" On multiple occasions when Acata asked refocusing questions about the homicide itself, Defendant replied "You're rushing me" or emphasized that Acata needed instead to see the "bigger picture," then returned to seemingly off-topic commentary. Approximately four hours after the interview began, Acata told Defendant that he "took three hours and told me the same thing over and over and over," to which Defendant replied, "did I?"

{10} Over the course of the interview, Defendant exhibited erratic behavior. When Rosenbaum asked what was making him "sad," Defendant appeared increasingly agitated and angry in stating "I said 'upset' . . . Don't twist my words around. Don't do that! That'll trigger me. That'll trigger me. Don't do that." Asked if he needed more water, Defendant appeared to refer to a pre-interview request for water in saying "they're like, 'hold on, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, . . . WAIT!' Wait for what?! Wait for it's too late?!" Subsequently Defendant stated, "my sister hates on me . . ." while crying; stated, "I asked you for a lawyer, don't get mad at me!"; appeared to lose his train of thought and sit silently until prompted; and made unexplained outbursts and comments including while alone in the room.

{11} At the conclusion of the interview, conducted entirely without counsel, Defendant was arrested.

B. Suppression Hearing and Order

{12} On November 16, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to suppress all statements made in the interview due to not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights.

{13} The State's evidence at the suppression hearing consisted of the recorded interview and of Rosenbaum's testimony that Defendant possessed the capacity to consent to waive his Miranda rights. The State argued that this evidence met its burden by a preponderance to show that Defendant's statements in the interview were given knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

{14} The district court granted the motion, concluding that the State did not meet its burden. In its written order, the district court found under the totality of the circumstances that Defendant's mental condition at the time of the interview "revealed that he had no awareness of his rights and no awareness of the consequences he faced by abandoning these rights. Additionally, there was no showing that Defendant actually waived his rights at any point."

{15} At the suppression hearing and in its written order, the district court explained at length the factual findings and reasoning underlying its conclusion. In its written order, the court's factual findings regarding capacity included that Defendant "behave[d] erratically, [wa]s fixated on bizarre topics, [wa]s incapable of answering most, if not all, of [Acata's] questions[,] and repeat[ed] himself on a variety of unrelated topics[,] . . . [n]one of [which we]re remotely related to the conversation [Acata wa]s attempting to have with Defendant." The court's explanation included its analysis of Rosenbaum's conclusions, which it found to be "vague, conclusory, and frankly st[anding] in stark contrast to the [district c]ourt's observations of Defendant's conduct and statements in his interview."

{16} The State filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The State then filed for interlocutory appeal of the grant of the motion to suppress. See State v. Smallwood, 2007-NMSC-005, ¶ 10, 141 N.M. 178, 152 P.3d 821 ("[I]t is clear to us that the [L]egislature conferred this Court with jurisdiction over a criminal defendant's interlocutory appeal in cases where a sentence of life imprisonment or death could be imposed."). The State asks this...