## Facts

- In 2002, Jose Valverde was found shot to death in a boxcar he used as a home in Clovis, New Mexico.
- David Gutierrez II later told his then-wife (Nicole Cordova) that he had “taken care of it,” which she understood as an admission that he killed Valverde; he also threatened her if she revealed what he said.
- Cordova also testified to nonverbal events and actions she observed around the time of the killing, including Gutierrez leaving and returning upset, going with him to the boxcar, seeing Valverde’s body, and helping locate a shotgun shell at Gutierrez’s request.
- Gutierrez and Cordova divorced. Gutierrez later remarried and told his second wife (Evelyn Franco) that he killed Valverde; by the time of trial, he and Franco were estranged.
- In 2015, a grand jury indicted Gutierrez for the killing, and he went to trial in 2017.
- At trial, Gutierrez invoked the spousal privilege for confidential marital communications to keep Cordova and Franco from testifying about his admissions.
- The district court ruled that Gutierrez had waived the privilege because he disclosed the same subject matter (his role in the killing) to third parties, and it allowed the wives’ testimony about his statements.
- A jury convicted Gutierrez, and he appealed directly to the New Mexico Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether New Mexico should retain the spousal communications privilege, or instead abolish it for future cases.
2. Under the privilege as it existed at the time of Gutierrez’s trial, whether a spouse waives the spousal communications privilege merely by telling third parties about the same events discussed in a confidential marital communication.
3. If privileged marital communications were admitted at trial, whether the error requires reversal or was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the spousal communications privilege had outlived its usefulness and abolished it for future cases only.
- Because the change was prospective, the Court applied the privilege as it existed during Gutierrez’s 2017 trial.
- The Court concluded that the district court erred by admitting some testimony recounting confidential marital communications that were protected at the time, and that the trial court’s subject-matter waiver rationale was incorrect.
- The Court nonetheless affirmed the convictions, holding that any erroneous admission of privileged communications was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the other evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The spousal communications privilege (as it existed before this decision) barred testimony about confidential communications made between spouses during a valid marriage.
- The privilege protected the communication itself; disclosure to third parties about the same general event did not automatically waive the privilege as to a confidential marital statement.
- Observations of a spouse’s conduct, actions, and other non-communicative events are not “communications” and are generally outside the privilege.
- New Mexico abolished the spousal communications privilege prospectively; trials occurring after the decision may not rely on that privilege to exclude confidential marital statements.
- When privileged evidence is admitted in violation of an evidentiary privilege that applies at the time of trial, reversal is not required if the State shows the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

State of New Mexico v. Gutierrez held that New Mexico will no longer recognize the spousal communications privilege in future cases, but because the abolition applied only going forward, the Court still evaluated Gutierrez’s trial under the prior privilege rules, found that some confidential marital statements were wrongly admitted, and affirmed the convictions because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the remaining, non-privileged evidence.


State of New Mexico v. Gutierrez, 482 P.3d 700 (2019)