## Facts

- Joseph Flores and Vernon Green had a turbulent relationship; Green moved to Carlsbad, New Mexico, to live with his parents and distance himself from Flores.
- After the relationship ended, Flores contacted Green’s ex-wife and falsely claimed Green was plotting to kidnap, rape, and kill their young son.
- Shortly before the homicide, Green rode with his mother and unexpectedly saw Flores at a traffic light; Green appeared agitated and said, “There’s Joseph.”
- Green’s mother later testified about Green’s statement and identified Flores as the driver she saw at the traffic light.
- Days later, Green was killed by being stabbed twenty-one times with a Phillips screwdriver.
- The State presented circumstantial evidence of Flores’s hostility and motive, as well as testimony placing Flores at or near the scene.
- A civilian eyewitness who had seen Flores in person several times at or near the scene (including on the day of the killing) later saw Flores’s photograph and then identified Flores in court.
- A jury convicted Flores of first-degree deliberate-intent murder, and the district court imposed a life sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the findings that Flores was the killer and that he acted with deliberate intent to kill.
2. Whether the victim’s statement, “There’s Joseph,” introduced through the mother, was inadmissible hearsay or violated confrontation rights.
3. Whether admitting evidence of Flores’s false accusations to Green’s ex-wife was an abuse of discretion as improper propensity evidence or unfairly prejudicial.
4. Whether the eyewitness’s in-court identification was inadmissibly tainted by the witness’s later exposure to Flores’s photograph.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to establish identity and deliberate intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting:
  - Flores’s false accusations to Green’s ex-wife as motive/animus evidence.
  - Green’s “There’s Joseph” statement and the mother’s related testimony.
  - The eyewitness’s in-court identification despite later viewing a photograph.
- The court concluded that any asserted weaknesses in identification evidence went to weight for the jury, not admissibility.

## Legal Principles

- Sufficiency review asks whether substantial direct or circumstantial evidence supports each essential element of the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, with deference to the jury’s factfinding and reasonable inferences.
- Deliberate intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the nature and number of wounds and the manner of the attack, along with relationship history and surrounding conduct.
- A spontaneous recognition statement made upon encountering a person may be admissible when tied closely to the declarant’s immediate perception and used to explain a witness’s subsequent attention and recollection; a witness’s identification based on personal observation is not rendered inadmissible merely because the witness also heard the statement.
- Evidence of prior conduct or statements may be admitted to show motive, hostility, or state of mind rather than character, subject to a trial court’s balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice.
- An in-court identification is admissible when reliability is supported by an independent basis such as prior in-person observations; later exposure to a photograph does not require exclusion if the identification rests primarily on those observations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Flores’s first-degree deliberate-intent murder conviction, finding sufficient evidence of identity and deliberation and concluding the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting motive evidence, the victim’s spontaneous recognition statement as presented through the mother, and the eyewitness’s in-court identification.


State v. Flores, 226 P.3d 641 (N.M. 2010)