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

• On January 19, 2005, police were dispatched to an Albuquerque residence following a report of screaming. They found Kathryn Hauser ("Victim") unconscious, unclothed, and surrounded by blood at the doorway, exhibiting unnatural breathing and severe head trauma. She was pronounced dead at the hospital due to blunt force trauma to the head, with evidence of sexual assault. The Defendant, Phillip Busey, was arrested after his DNA matched that found on the Victim's body, with further tests revealing the Victim's DNA on his pants.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court violated the stipulation by admitting evidence of sperm on the victim's body, abused its discretion in denying for-cause challenges of prospective jurors, erred in refusing a mistrial when a juror disclosed knowing the defendant from prison, erred in denying a theory-of-the-case jury instruction, violated the defendant's right to a fair trial by permitting handcuffing before jury deliberation was complete, claimed multiple convictions constituted double jeopardy, and argued cumulative error.
• Appellee: Contended that the stipulation only precluded identification of the defendant's DNA, not the mere presence of sperm, and defended the district court's decisions on jury selection, mistrial denial, jury instruction, and the handling of the defendant's handcuffing, arguing no prejudice against the defendant and no violation of double jeopardy principles.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the stipulation by admitting evidence of sperm on the victim's body.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying for-cause challenges of prospective jurors.
• Whether the district court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when a prospective juror disclosed knowing the defendant from prison.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the defendant's theory-of-the-case jury instruction.
• Whether the district court violated the defendant's right to a fair trial by permitting handcuffing before jury deliberation was complete.
• Whether the defendant's multiple convictions constitute double jeopardy.
• Whether cumulative error occurred in the defendant's trial.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the defendant's convictions on all counts.

Reasons

• RICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice (with CHARLES W. DANIELS, Chief Justice, PATRICIO M. SERNA, Justice, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice, EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice concurring): The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of sperm presence, as it did not identify the defendant as the source, aligning with the stipulation's intent. The denial of for-cause challenges of prospective jurors was not seen as prejudicial, given the defendant did not exhaust available peremptory challenges. The decision to deny a mistrial following a juror's disclosure of knowing the defendant from prison was supported by the court's proactive measures to prevent jury prejudice. The rejection of the defendant's non-uniform jury instruction was justified, as it was redundant and argumentative, with the court favoring standard instructions. The handcuffing of the defendant, occurring after a guilty verdict on felony murder, did not prejudice the defendant's presumption of innocence, as it was already lost. The convictions did not violate double jeopardy principles, with the court vacating all but one murder conviction and the predicate felonies, in line with New Mexico jurisprudence. Lastly, the absence of identified errors negated the application of the cumulative error doctrine.