State v. Pacheco

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLOS PACHECO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-37980

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

June 28, 2021

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals 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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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 Court of Appeals.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY

James Waylon Counts, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

Meryl E. Francolini, Assistant Attorney General

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Charles D. Agoos, Assistant Appellate Defender

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Chief Judge.

{1} Defendant Carlos Pacheco appeals his convictions for criminal sexual penetration of a minor (CSPM), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-11(D)(1) (2009), and criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-13(B)(1) (2003). On appeal, Defendant raises numerous arguments related to the voluntariness of the statements he made during his interrogation, his inability to present a coerced confession defense, and evidentiary issues he contends deprived him of a fair trial. Defendant additionally argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and the alleged errors constituted cumulative error. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} Defendant was charged with four counts each of CSPM and CSCM following allegations raised by his estranged wife, Mayra Guzman, that Defendant had sexually abused Guzman's daughter (Victim). A jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of CSPM and one count of CSCM. This appeal followed. Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we reserve further discussion of specific facts where necessary to our analysis.

DISCUSSION

{3} Before turning to our discussion of the issues raised in this appeal, we note that a number of Defendant's arguments are undeveloped, unsupported, or generally insufficiently analyzed for the purposes of our review. We will not review undeveloped or unsupported arguments. See State v. Fuentes, 2010-NMCA-027, ¶ 29, 147 N.M. 761, 228 P.3d 1181 (noting that we will "not review unclear or undeveloped arguments [that] require us to guess at what [a party's] arguments might be"); Chan v. Montoya, 2011-NMCA-072, ¶ 9, 150 N.M. 44, 256 P.3d 987 ("It is not our practice to rely on assertions of counsel unaccompanied by support in the record. The mere assertions and arguments of counsel are not evidence." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Vigil-Giron, 2014-NMCA-069, ¶ 60, 327 P.3d 1129 ("[A]ppellate courts will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in support of the issue and . . . , given no cited authority, we assume no such authority exists."). It is not our duty to surmise from inadequate analysis what a party's argument might be, and, indeed, to do so would be counterproductive to our duties as an appellate court. See Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70, 309 P.3d 53 ("To rule on an inadequately briefed issue, [the appellate court] would have to develop the arguments itself, effectively performing the parties' work for them. This creates a strain on judicial resources and a substantial risk of error." (citation omitted)). It is, likewise, not our duty to assume how a particular cited authority applies to the facts at hand without adequate analysis from a party. See Lukens v. Franco, 2019-NMSC-002, ¶ 5, 433 P.3d 288 ("When a criminal conviction is being challenged, counsel should properly present [the appellate] court with the issues, arguments, and proper authority. Mere reference in a conclusory statement will not suffice and is in violation of our [R]ules of [A]ppellate [P]rocedure." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Rule 12-318(A)(4) NMRA (setting out the briefing requirements, including the requirement that appellate briefs cite applicable New Mexico case law).

{4} Defendant raises ten issues on appeal, many of which suffer from the defects described above. We additionally remind Defendant that it is normally in a litigant's interest to limit the number of issues they choose to raise on appeal in order to ensure that the issues presented are ones that can be adequately supported by argument, authority, and factual support in the record, as required by Rule 12-318(A)(4). See Rio Grande Kennel Club v. City of Albuquerque, 2008-NMCA-093, ¶¶ 54-55, 144 N.M. 636, 190 P.3d 1131 ("[W]e encourage litigants to consider carefully whether the number of issues they intend to appeal will negatively impact the efficacy with which each of those issues can be presented.").

I. The District Court Did Not Err in Determining That Defendant's Interrogation Statements Were Voluntary and in Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress

{5} Defendant was interviewed by Detective David Hunter and Deputy Kenneth Funk as part of their investigation of the charges filed against Defendant. At the start of the interrogation, Detective Hunter read Defendant his Miranda rights and confirmed that Defendant understood them. Defendant agreed to be interviewed without an attorney present and proceeded to answer Detective Hunter's questions. Defendant denied inappropriately touching Victim but admitted to touching her private area when moving her in bed and bathing her and admitted that on one occasion, when Victim slept between him and Guzman, he placed Victim's hand on his penis believing it was Guzman's hand.

{6} Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the statements he made during the interview, asserting that such statements were obtained in violation of Defendant's rights under the United States Constitution, the New Mexico Constitution, and the Rules of Evidence. Following a hearing and review of the interrogation video, the district court denied Defendant's motion.

{7} Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the incriminating statements made during his interrogation were involuntary and should have been suppressed because (1) Detective Hunter made implied promises of leniency to Defendant; (2) Defendant was particularly susceptible to coercion due to his lack of education; and (3) the interrogation techniques used by Detective Hunter "have been empirically linked to false confessions." We first set out the applicable standard of review and then address each of Defendant's arguments in turn.

{8} "Appellate review of a district court's decision regarding a motion to suppress evidence involves mixed questions of fact and law." State v. Widmer, 2020-NMSC-007, ¶ 11, 461 P.3d 881 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review the application of the law de novo but view "the evidence in the light most favorable to the state." Id. "The [district] court's denial of a motion to suppress will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence, unless it also appears that the determination was incorrectly premised." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "We review de novo the voluntariness of confessions." State v. Evans, 2009-NMSC-027, ¶ 32, 146 N.M. 319, 210 P.3d 216.

{9} "Both the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process negate admissibility of a confession elicited through intimidation, coercion, deception, assurances, or other police misconduct that constitutes overreaching." State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 7, 150 N.M. 232, 258 P.3d 1024 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "We base our determination of whether a confession is voluntary on whether 'official coercion' has occurred." Evans, 2009-NMSC-027, ¶ 33. "Official coercion occurs when a defendant's will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination has been critically impaired." Id. (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). In order to conclude that a defendant's confession was involuntary, "[t]here must be an essential link between coercive activity of the [s]tate and a resulting confession by a defendant." Id. (omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). When the voluntariness of a defendant's confession is challenged on appeal, we examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the confession was made voluntarily. State v. Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 5, 390 P.3d 212.

A. Implied Promises of Leniency

{10} Defendant contends that his confession was involuntary because Detective Hunter made implied promises of leniency during the interrogation. Defendant claims Detective Hunter made numerous statements while interrogating him that constituted implied promises of leniency, including (1) Defendant was a "good person"; (2) Detective Hunter could "minimize things" for Defendant; and (3) "good people acknowledge when they've done something wrong."

{11} In determining whether Detective Hunter made any implied promises of leniency to Defendant, "we consider whether the accused could reasonably have inferred a promise" to modify or lessen the punishment attached to the crimes for which he was charged. State v. Baroz, 2017-NMSC-030, ¶ 36, 404 P.3d 769 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Adjurations to tell the truth do not provide the basis for a ruling that, as a matter of law, the confession was involuntary." State v. Tindle, 1986-NMCA-035, ¶ 31, 104 N.M. 195, 718 P.2d 705. Instead, an adjuration to tell the truth "is but one factor for the court to consider in determining whether [the defendant]'s will was overborne." Id. Indeed, "threats that merely highlight potential real consequences, or are adjurations to tell the truth, are not characterized as impermissibly coercive." Baroz, 2017-NMSC-030, ¶ 36 ...