NM Supreme Court orders new trial for two men convicted of murder in 2019

Two men convicted of the 2019 murder of a Meadow Lake father have been granted a new trial and their convictions have been overturned by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

On Monday, April 28, the five judge panel issued a unanimous opinion concluding a 13th Judicial District Court judge wrongly excluded an eyewitness from being called to testify at trial, which deprived Jesus Garcia, of Peralta, and Alexandro Montelongo-Murillo, of El Paso, of their constitutional right to present a defense.

The eyewitness, Lorenzo Montaño, was a neighbor to Daniel Sandoval, the man Garcia and Montelongo-Murillo were convicted of killing.

According to the press release issued by the administrative office of the courts, Montaño saw the drive-by shooting of Sandoval and identified a third man in the vehicle who was never charged in the crime as one of the shooters.

“We are disappointed in the court’s decision but respect it,” said Jessica Martinez, the spokeswoman for the 13th Judicial District Attorney’s Office and one of the assistant district attorney’s who tried the case. “Once the case is remanded back to district court, we will get ready to try the case again.”

Martinez said the case will be assigned to the original judge who heard the case, 13th Judicial District Court Judge Cindy Mercer.

“The (Supreme Court) is saying the defense should have had the opportunity to call this witness and since that was not allowed, they were not afforded the right to bring their own defense,” she said. “That’s why it was reversed and why we have to redo the trial.”

The opinion, written by Justice Julie J. Vargas, in part states, “As defendant Garcia persuasively argues, there is little doubt that Montaño’s testimony was crucial to the defense because he was an eyewitness to the homicide at issue and he would testify that someone else — a plausible alternate suspect — committed the crime. This evidence is quintessential exculpatory evidence that, if believed, could completely change the outcome of trial.”

According to the Cornell Law School website, exculpatory evidence is evidence that is favorable to the defendant and could absolve the defendant of the alleged fault or guilt.

In November 2022, a jury convicted Garcia and Montelongo-Murillo of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. They were each sentenced to life in prison for murder and an additional 18 years for the other offenses.

According to testimony at the trial, Garcia and Montelongo-Murillo went to the home Sandoval shared with his wife of less than a year, Tanya Sandoval, on Prados Place in Meadow Lake on March 2, 2019. They began shooting at Sandoval and his brother, Scott, while the two were working on the house.

The brothers fled in Daniel’s car with the two men pursuing them in a gray SUV and continuing to shoot at the vehicle driven by Daniel. The chase continued through the neighborhood, ending on Meadow Lake Road with Daniel slumped over the steering wheel of the car. He had been shot in the head and died at an Albuquerque hospital later that day.

According to Scott, his brother told him during the chase a man named “Boxer” was after him. Scott later identified Garcia as “Boxer,” the gray SUV driver, and Montelongo-Murillo as the passenger after viewing photographs provided by law enforcement.

Scott Sandoval was not shown a photograph of a third man Montaño said was shooting from the SUV’s passenger window. A Valencia County Sheriff’s Office detective interrogated that man and determined he was not involved, according to the press release.

Daniel Sandoval’s wife gave birth to his son, also named Daniel, a little more than a week after he was murdered.

During pretrial proceedings, Montaño was on the prosecution’s list of possible witnesses. The defense listed one expert witness and “any witness called, revealed or disclosed by the state.”

Several days before the trial, the defense sought to subpoena Montaño to appear at trial. The prosecution, who did not intend to call Montaño to testify, asked the court to prohibit him from serving as a defense witness.

Judge Mercer excluded Montaño as a witness after conducting a hearing, concluding the defense failed to comply with a requirement in rules of criminal procedure to identify its witnesses by name and address within 30 days of the arraignment of a defendant. Mercer also found it prejudicial to the prosecution for the defense to wait until just before trial to identify a witness.

In considering appeals of the defendants’ convictions, the Supreme Court determined the defense met the requirements for notifying the prosecution of witnesses, and that “neither the state nor the defense is required to retype the names and addresses of an opposing party’s witnesses onto their witness list” under procedural rules.

“In sum, a party provides adequate notice of intent to call an opposing party’s witnesses by including a general statement reserving the right to call the opposing party’s witnesses,” the court wrote.

The justices also provided guidance to trial courts on the legal standard to follow in deciding whether to exclude a defense witness in a criminal trial.

Trial courts must consider sanctions less severe than exclusion of a witness, the extent of prejudice to the prosecution, whether the defense willfully violated witness notice requirements and the impact on the trial of excluding a witness.

The justices found there was sufficient evidence to warrant a new trial for Garcia and Montelongo-Murillo. The court also rejected a defense argument that Scott Sandoval’s identification of the defendants should be suppressed.

“We do not condone the suggestive eyewitness identification procedure (the use of photos) that was used in this case. However, given the exigent circumstances, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that law enforcement had good reason to use the suggestive identification procedure, and, therefore, the admission of evidence of the identification did not violate co-defendants’ due process rights,” the court wrote.