## Facts

- A fight occurred near a bridge dividing East and West Pecos, New Mexico; windshields of three trucks were smashed.
- Rosinaldo (“Russ”) Quintana, a deputy marshal and special deputy sheriff, was told of the damage, dressed in his badge and official shirt, and went to investigate using a borrowed truck.
- Quintana drove to the bridge, then to the Valencia residence where Telesfor Lopez’s group was gathered near a bonfire drinking beer.
- Quintana testified he identified himself as deputy marshal and, after hearing “pop shots,” fired his rifle into the air and left; he denied shooting toward the group.
- Witnesses from Lopez’s group testified they heard gunfire as vehicles arrived and Lopez was shot in the back.
- At the hospital, Lopez made a statement to an attorney describing the shooting’s circumstances; Lopez was not told he would die but knew he was seriously injured, had a broken back, and faced a strong possibility of death.
- Lopez died about three hours after making the statement.

## Issues

1. Whether Lopez’s hospital statement was admissible as a dying declaration based on sufficient evidence that he spoke under a settled belief that death was imminent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals.
- The Court held the trial court properly admitted Lopez’s statement as a dying declaration.
- The Court reinstated Quintana’s voluntary manslaughter conviction.
- The Court ruled that weaknesses in the statement (including inability to name the shooter) affected weight, not admissibility.

## Legal Principles

- A dying declaration is admissible when the declarant makes a statement about the cause or circumstances of impending death while under a settled, hopeless expectation of death and without hope of recovery.
- The declarant’s belief in imminent death need not be shown by specific words; it may be inferred from the nature of the injuries, the declarant’s awareness of condition, and the closeness in time between the statement and death.
- The trial judge makes the preliminary admissibility determination; the jury evaluates credibility and weight.
- Appellate review of a dying-declaration admissibility ruling is deferential; doubts about the declarant’s state of mind generally go to weight rather than admissibility.

## Conclusion

The court held that a mortally wounded victim’s hospital statement describing the shooting was admissible as a dying declaration because the evidence permitted an inference that the victim understood death was likely and imminent, and the appellate court erred by reweighing that admissibility determination.


State v. Quintana, 644 P.2d 531 (N.M. 1982)