State v. Lopez
2011 NMSC 035, 150 N.M. 179, 258 P.3d 458 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party may not introduce a witness's testimony for the primary purpose of impeaching that witness with otherwise inadmissible hearsay; the testimony must be offered to provide relevant, substantive evidence, and the impeaching statement must be used to contradict testimony that is affirmatively harmful, not merely disappointing.
Facts:
- On the night of April 12, 2001, Crystal Calderella was with Ramon Lopez, Greg Romero, and others, consuming drugs and alcohol at her home.
- On April 15, 2001, Calderella's body was discovered in her home with her clothes partially removed, showing signs of injury.
- Semen found in Calderella's vagina was subsequently identified as belonging to Lopez.
- A few weeks after Calderella’s death, Greg Romero told an acquaintance, Barbara Olguin, that he witnessed Lopez have a physical altercation with Calderella, knock her unconscious, and then choke and rape her.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramon Lopez was charged with first-degree felony murder and other crimes in New Mexico district court.
- At a preliminary hearing, witness Greg Romero testified under oath and was cross-examined.
- Before trial, the State was unable to locate Romero, and the district court declared him an unavailable witness.
- The district court permitted the State to introduce Romero's recorded preliminary hearing testimony as evidence under a hearsay exception.
- The district court then allowed the State, over defense objection, to call Barbara Olguin to impeach Romero’s testimony with a prior inconsistent statement.
- A jury convicted Lopez on multiple charges, including felony murder.
- Lopez appealed his life sentence directly to the Supreme Court of New Mexico, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party improperly use impeachment as a subterfuge to introduce otherwise inadmissible hearsay when it introduces an unavailable witness's testimony that is largely cumulative and not affirmatively harmful, for the primary purpose of impeaching it with a prior inconsistent statement?
Opinions:
Majority - Serna, Justice
Yes. A party improperly uses impeachment when its primary purpose is to introduce otherwise inadmissible hearsay rather than to present substantive evidence. The State is not permitted to use a witness's testimony as a mere pretext to introduce a prior inconsistent statement that would otherwise be barred as hearsay. The court held that the primary purpose for introducing testimony is improper if the testimony itself is not substantively useful (e.g., it is cumulative of other evidence) and if the portion to be impeached is not 'affirmatively harmful' to the proponent's case. Here, Romero's preliminary hearing testimony about the events of the night was largely duplicative of other witnesses' testimony and his denial of seeing anything 'unusual' was not affirmatively harmful to the State's case. Therefore, the court concluded the State's true purpose in introducing Romero's testimony was not for its evidentiary value, but as a 'subterfuge' to introduce Olguin's highly prejudicial hearsay testimony about what Romero allegedly saw. This was an abuse of the trial court's discretion and constituted reversible error.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the 'primary purpose' or 'subterfuge' limitation on a party's right to impeach its own witness under Rule 11-607. It establishes a clear boundary against using impeachment as a backdoor to admit powerful, otherwise inadmissible hearsay. By scrutinizing the substantive value and harmfulness of the initial testimony, the court provides a framework for lower courts to prevent prosecutors from calling a witness (or introducing their testimony) solely to create a predicate for introducing a damaging prior inconsistent statement. This decision protects the integrity of the hearsay rule and ensures that impeachment is used for its intended purpose—to challenge credibility—not to introduce substantive evidence that fails to meet an exception.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Lopez