July 18, Hector H. On appeal, Defendant first argues that the district court improperly admitted evidence of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or other acts. However, when, as here, the uncharged crimes, wrongs, or other acts are the predicate offenses to charges of racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering, Rule B NMRA is inapplicable.
Defendant additionally argues that the district court improperly admitted the transcript of an audio recording in which a sheriff's office detective identified four distinct voices, including Defendant's. We conclude, however, that the detective was sufficiently familiar with the recorded voices to make identification under New Mexico law.
Sergeant Martinez attempted to determine if the vehicle was occupied, but she was unable to do so. She then proceeded as dispatched. While searching in and around the shed, Sergeant Martinez observed Defendant lying under a trailer. She instructed Defendant to exit. Fire department personnel extinguished the fire and discovered a deceased person inside the vehicle. Investigation indicated that the fire was intentionally ignited by use of an ignitable liquid. The deceased person was subsequently identified as Richard Valdez, and the cause of death was determined to be homicidal violence.
The vehicle was identified as a Suzuki station wagon purchased by a member of the AZ Boys. Deputy Garcia again refused. Deputy Garcia recorded this interaction on his pocket recorder and reported it to his supervisor.
With the exception of racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering, the charges against Defendant were dismissed without prejudice and re-filed as a separate cause of action.
Prior to trial, the State filed notice of its intent to introduce Rule B evidence, including evidence of murder, arson, and bribery. The audio recording and a transcript of the discussion, which identified the individual speakers, were admitted into evidence over objection. Since the language of our Rule B 1 is identical to that of federal Rule b 1 , we may look to the federal courts for guidance as to the proper application of the rule.
Therefore, the applicability of Rule B to the racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering charges against Defendant is central to our inquiry. Evidence of the predicate offenses is, therefore, intrinsic rather than extrinsic to a racketeering charge.
United States circuit courts have held that federal Rule b does not apply to such intrinsic evidence. See United States v. Ruiz, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and criminal sexual contact with a minor. The victim was a friend of one of the defendant's daughters, and she frequented the defendant's home. The defendant was charged with five offenses, including one in July , based upon the victim's ability to distinguish the general nature and timing of the assaults.
At trial, the state offered testimony from the defendant's eldest daughter in which she described witnessing the defendant touching the victim's genital area in July Gallegos, our Supreme Court applied a similar rationale in arriving at the opposite conclusion. The defendant was indicted on seven counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor CSCM and three counts of aggravated indecent exposure stemming from incidents while he was a guard at the Youth Diagnostic and Detention Center YDDC.
The indecent exposure charges arose from separate conduct with another female resident, U. The district court denied the defendant's motion to sever the two trials. The defendant was convicted on one charge of CSCM and two charges of aggravated indecent exposure. Rule B is, therefore, inapplicable to evidence admitted to demonstrate these predicate offenses.
Because admitted evidence of murder, arson, and bribery related directly to the predicate offenses of racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering, the district court's admission of this intrinsic evidence did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Defendant argues that the State's witness, Detective Picazo, lacked sufficient familiarity with Defendant's voice, as well as the voices of other members of the AZ Boys, to positively identify and differentiate between four otherwise unidentified voices on the admitted audio recording.
As an indication of the low threshold for admissibility established by Rule B 5 , Padilla discussed United States v. On the day of Defendant's arrest, Detective Picazo spoke with Defendant in person on two separate occasions: Detective Picazo also monitored between six and eight of Defendant's telephone conversations during Defendant's pre-trial incarceration. These in-person conversations and monitoring activities provide sufficient foundation for Detective Picazo to identify Defendant's voice on the admitted audio recording.
Detective Picazo conducted an in-person interview with Bob Chavez during the investigation and monitored between eight and ten of Bob Chavez's telephone conversations during his incarceration. Detective Picazo monitored a similar number of Joe Chavez's telephone conversations during his incarceration and became familiar with Joe Chavez Jr.
This argument is unpersuasive. Any inability to do so with respect to individual segments of the audio recording goes to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility. During the course of Defendant's trial, the State offered a substantial amount of testimony and evidence to demonstrate 1 the AZ Boys' status as a criminal enterprise, 2 Defendant's affiliation with the AZ Boys, and 3 Defendant's participation in a pattern of racketeering activities.
This opinion discusses only the testimony and evidence necessary to resolve the legal issues raised on appeal. Defendant objected to the admission of audio recordings downloaded from his cellular telephone on the ground that the State failed to obtain an independent search warrant for the contents of his cellular telephone.
Defendant did not raise this argument on appeal.