 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Landgraf1/11/1996
Defendant drove at a high rate of speed, struck the victims, and caused their deaths. The State was also required to prove that Defendant committed an act which was "greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind regardless of human life" and that Defendant knew "such acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm." NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1 (Repl. Pamp. 1994). Evidence showing the natural consequences and actual results of Defendant's actions was admissible as proof of the elements for depraved mind murder. ) ("depraved mind murder is defined primarily by its consequences"), cert. quashed, 103 N.M. 344, 707 P.2d 552 (1985). The extent of the wreck and the heroic efforts required of rescuers to deal with the devastation were offered as proof of the consequences of the charged offense.
{14} Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." SCRA 11-401. The havoc caused by Defendant's operation of his vehicle make it more probable such acts were "greatly dangerous to the lives of others." Section 30-2-1(A)(3). The trial court had discretion to determine that the probative value of this evidence was not "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." SCRA 11-403; see also
B. Officers' Testimony
{15} Defendant next challenges portions of testimony by police and fire officials involved in the high-speed chase and subsequent rescue. Defendant again relies on Rules 401 and 403 to support his challenge to the trial court's admission of testimony by former Deputy Sheriff Matthew Murray and former firefighter Jeffrey Bass that they quit their jobs as a consequence of this wreck.
{16} Once again, the record does not support Defendant's position. Defendant was charged with assault on a peace officer; specifically, Deputy Murray. That offense requires the State to prove that Defendant knew Murray was a peace officer and that Defendant intended to and attempted to kill Murray by hitting Murray with his car. Deputy Murray's testimony was admissible to prove those elements.
{17} Deputy Murray testified that he quit the sheriff's office three or four weeks after Defendant, travelling at a speed in excess of 100 miles per hour, aimed his car at the mid-section of Murray's police car. Defendant very narrowly missed striking the car only because Murray was able to back quickly into the median. Murray was totally and profoundly convinced that Defendant intended to kill him and he acted on this conviction by quitting police work.
{18} Mr. Bass testified that following the accident he left the fire department because he had determined he was not cut out for handling situations where he was forced to be helpless when people were so seriously injured. Although the relevance of Bass's testimony was somewhat marginal, the trial court acted within its discretion in finding this testimony related to the elements of depraved mind murder discussed previously.
{19} The trial court had broad discretion to determine the relevance and probative value of offered testimony, and Defendant has not shown an abuse of discretion. See . Thus, the trial court properly admitted evidence from Murray and Bass concerning the automobile wreck.
{20} Defendant complains that the State elicited from witnesses, especially police officers, statements that, in their opinions: Defendant had a depraved mind and no regard for human life; Defendant's complex motor reactions demonstrated deliberation; and the crash was intentional. Relying on , Defendant contends these
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|