State v. Herrera (Unpublished Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23-112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 2 Filing Date: June 22, 2023 3 No. S-1-SC-39313 4 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 5 Plaintiff-Appellee, 6 v. 7 DAMIAN HERRERA, 8 Defendant-Appellant. 9 10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY Jason Lidyard, District Judge 11 12 13 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Thomas J. Lewis, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 16 17 Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Van Snow, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM 18 for Appellee DISPOSITIONAL ORDER 19 20 PER CURIAM. 1 {1} WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court on Defendant Damian 2 Herrera’s direct appeal after a jury convicted him of four counts of first-degree 3 murder contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-1(A)(1) (1994), aggravated fleeing a 4 law enforcement officer contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1.1 (2003, amended 5 2022), receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle contrary to NMSA 6 1978, Section 30-16D-4 (2009), resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer contrary 7 to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1 (1981), attempt to disarm a peace officer contrary 8 to NMSA 1978, Section 30-28-1 (1963) and NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-27(A)(1) 9 (1997), assault upon a peace officer contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22- 10 21(A)(1) (1971), larceny of a firearm contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-1(H) 11 (2006), and theft of a credit card contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-26 (1971), 12 see Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA (requiring “appeals from the district courts in which 13 a sentence of death or life imprisonment has been imposed” to be taken to this 14 Court); 15 {2} 16 127, 428 P.2d 982, and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, ¶ 20, 103 N.M. 655, 712 17 P.2d 1, Defendant asks this Court to reverse his convictions on the grounds that the 18 district court abused its discretion by admitting irrelevant photographs of a rifle and WHEREAS, pursuant to State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, ¶ 9, 78 N.M. 2 1 ammunition and by allowing an officer to testify on rebuttal about his observations 2 regarding whether Defendant was intoxicated; 3 {3} 4 discretion in admitting the photographs or allowing the rebuttal testimony, see State 5 v. Simonson, 1983-NMSC-075, ¶ 22, 100 N.M. 297, 669 P.2d 1092 (“An abuse of 6 discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts 7 and circumstances of the case.”); 8 {4} 9 the grounds that the district court abused its discretion by admitting lapel video of a 10 highly emotional statement given at the crime scene by Defendant’s sister because 11 the probative value of the video was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial 12 impact, see Rule 11-403 NMRA (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its 13 probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.”); 14 {5} 15 because the lapel video was cumulative of unchallenged testimony, there was no 16 additional emphasis placed on the video, and the video played for less than one 17 minute on the first day of a thirteen-day trial, see State v. Serna, 2013-NMSC-033, 18 ¶ 23, 305 P.3d 936; State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 36, 275 P.3d 110 (“[A] WHEREAS, the Court concludes that the district court did not abuse its WHEREAS, Defendant further asks this Court to reverse his convictions on WHEREAS, Defendant failed to show that any error was not harmless 3 1 non-constitutional error is harmless when there is no reasonable probability the error 2 affected the verdict.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); 3 {6} 4 a peace officer and for resisting, evading, or obstructing a peace officer violate the 5 Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy, see State v. Porter, 2020- 6 NMSC-020, ¶¶ 1, 5, 476 P.3d 1201 (noting that the Fifth Amendment of the United 7 States Constitution prohibits “imposing multiple punishments for the same offense” 8 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); 9 {7} WHEREAS, Defendant further contends that his convictions for assault upon WHEREAS, when the conduct forming the basis for two charges under two 10 different statutes is unitary and the Legislature did not intend to punish the conduct 11 separately, the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy is violated, 12 Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043, ¶ 25, 112 N.M. 3, 810 P.2d 1223; 13 {8} 14 indicia of distinctness,” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 12 (internal quotation 15 marks and citation omitted); 16 {9} 17 the acts were close in time and space, their similarity, the sequence in which they 18 occurred, whether other events intervened, and the defendant’s goals for and mental WHEREAS, conduct is unitary “if the acts are not separated by sufficient WHEREAS, in determining whether conduct is unitary, we consider “whether 4 1 state during each act.” State v. Franco, 2005-NMSC-013, ¶ 7, 137 N.M. 447, 112 2 P.3d 1104; 3 {10} 4 evading, or obstructing a peace officer and assault on a peace officer occurred close 5 in time and space, were similar in nature, there were no intervening events between 6 the two acts, and Defendant’s goals for and mental state during each act were the 7 same; 8 {11} 9 charge was unitary; WHEREAS, the conduct underlying Defendant’s conviction for resisting, WHEREAS, the Court concludes Defendant’s conduct underlying each 10 {12} WHEREAS, neither the resisting, evading, or obstructing a peace officer 11 statute nor the assault upon a peace officer statute explicitly authorizes punishing a 12 defendant for conduct that violates both statutes, see Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 15 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); 14 {13} 15 “we consider the state’s legal theory of the case applied to the statutes at issue to 16 determine the elements of each offense the defendant committed” to decide “whether 17 one of the offenses subsumes the other offense,” id. ¶¶ 18, 20; 18 {14} 19 are subsumed within the elements of assault on a peace officer under the State’s legal WHEREAS, when the Court determines the underlying conduct is unitary, WHEREAS, the elements of resisting, evading, or obstructing a peace officer 5 1 theory of the case, see State v. Diaz 1995-NMCA-137, ¶¶ 14-15, 121 N.M. 28, 908 2 P.2d 258 (concluding for that case that resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, 3 § 30-22-1(B) or (D), is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault upon a peace 4 officer, § 30-22-21(A)(1)); 5 {15} 6 evading, or obstructing a peace officer under Section 30-22-1 and assault on a peace 7 officer under Section 30-22-21(A)(1) violate the Fifth Amendment prohibition 8 against double jeopardy and that one or the other of these two convictions, which 9 carry identical sentences, must be vacated, see State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, 10 ¶ 55, 306 P.3d 426 (“[W]here one of two otherwise valid convictions must be 11 vacated to avoid violation of double jeopardy protections, we must vacate the 12 conviction carrying the shorter sentence.”); 13 {16} 14 informed on the issues and applicable law; and 15 {17} 16 405(B) NMRA to dispose of this case by nonprecedential order rather than by formal 17 opinion; 18 {18} 19 court with instructions to vacate either Defendant’s conviction for resisting, evading, WHEREAS, the Court concludes that Defendant’s convictions for resisting, WHEREAS, the Court having considered the briefs and being otherwise fully WHEREAS, the Court has chosen to exercise its discretion under Rule 12- NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED this case is remanded to the district 6 1 or obstructing a peace officer or his conviction for assaulting a peace officer and to 2 leave Defendant’s remaining convictions in place. 3 {19} 4 otherwise affirmed. 5 {20} IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s judgment and sentence is IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice 8 9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice 10 11 DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice 12 13 JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice 14 15 BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.