AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant, Phillip R. Robles, who was accused of breaking into the Victim, Heather Trujillo's home, battering her, and interfering with her ability to communicate. The incidents leading to the charges occurred on August 23, 2016, August 27, 2016, and were intended to prevent the Victim from appearing at a preliminary hearing set for September 1, 2016. The Defendant also held the Victim against her will to prevent her testimony in a separate magistrate court case and engaged in numerous phone calls to persuade her to sign a no prosecution form to drop the charges against him (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Drew D. Tatum, District Judge, October 5, 2017: The Defendant was convicted by a jury trial of kidnapping, battery against a household member, and interference with communications.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the admission of the Victim's out-of-court statements violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, disputing the Victim's unavailability and the Defendant's role in causing this unavailability with the intent of preventing her testimony (paras 2, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant forfeited his right to confrontation under the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing, demonstrating that the Defendant's misconduct caused the Victim's unavailability with the intent of preventing her testimony (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the admission of the Victim's out-of-court statements violated the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for kidnapping, battery against a household member, and interference with communications (para 10).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with concurrence from Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Henry M. Bohnhoff, Judge, the court reasoned that the Defendant forfeited his right to confrontation under the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing. The State successfully proved that the Victim was expected to be a witness, became unavailable due to the Defendant's misconduct, and that the Defendant intended this outcome to prevent her testimony. The court found no lapse in time could undo the impact of the Defendant's conduct, which included verbal and physical threats and efforts to have charges dropped. Additionally, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence presented at trial for the jury to reasonably conclude that the Defendant committed the crimes on or about September 1, 2016, as the jury instructions did not limit the actions to that specific date but rather to a period "on or about" it (paras 2-9).