Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of New Mexico v. Charles McClaugherty
Date: 03-06-2001
Case Number:
Judge: Not available
Court: Second District Court, Bernalillo County, New Mexico
Plaintiff's Attorney: Kenny Montoya for the Bernalillo County New Mexico District Attorney's Office
s
Defendant's Attorney: John Cline and Zachary A. Ives on appeal.
Description:
Albuquerque, New Mexico defendant, Charles McClaughterty, age 18, was charged with first degree murder for allegedly shooting and killing Ricky Solis, age 21, on June 19, 1999.
The indictment McClaugherty arose from a shooting in Albuquerque over an argument wherein Ricky Solisz argued with a girl on the phone. The conversation allegedly concluded with Solisz threatening to slap or kick her. The girl was at a party at McClaugherty's apartment, and McClaugherty took umbrage when he was told of Solisz's aggression. McClaugherty and his friend Rodrigo Dominguez argued with Solisz on the telephone, and eventually Solisz agreed to bring his friends to a fight where McClaugherty and his friends would defend the girl from the disrespect. The two groups agreed to meet at a shopping center parking lot and arrived there in separate cars.
McClaugherty arrived with Dominguez, Nachima Coriz, and others at the rendezvous. Solisz arrived with his friends, Vincent Martinez and Eloy Sandoval. Martinez brandished a baseball bat. Id. ¶ 6. There was testimony that McClaugherty and his friends brought two handguns and a shotgun with them. Shots fired from McClaugherty's group fatally wounded Solisz and injured Martinez. The police determined that the fatal shot had come from a handgun; however, they recovered only one handgun and they could not determine if that gun had fired the fatal shot. After the early morning shootout, McClaugherty and Coriz hid all day in a nearby apartment. That evening, Coriz turned himself in to the police and gave them a statement inculpating McClaugherty and Dominguez.
The prosecution's case rested almost soley on the testimony of Coriz, who as not charged in the shooting.
Defendant's trial began on February 28, 2001. At trial, Coriz testified against Defendant. Coriz was the only witness to identify Defendant as one of the men who fired a gun on the night of the murder. Coriz claimed that Defendant carried a pistol to the scene on the night of the murder. He testified that he saw Defendant and another person get out of the Cadillac and run toward a fence that bordered the parking lot. While running, Coriz testified, Defendant turned and shot at the Neon between five and seven times, then turned back and jumped over the fence. Coriz testified that after they returned to the apartment, he heard Defendant tell his sister that they "went and shot at some people."
Coriz testified for the State at McClaugherty's trial and was the only witness to identify McClaugherty as one of the young men who fired a gun on the night of the murder. Coriz testified that McClaugherty carried a pistol to the scene on the night of the murder and that he saw McClaugherty and another person get out of their car and run toward a fence bordering the parking lot. Coriz claimed that McClaugherty turned and shot at Solisz's car between five and seven times while he was running, then turned and jumped over the fence. Coriz also testified that after he, McClaugherty and Dominguez returned to Defendant's apartment, he heard Defendant tell his sister that they "went and shot at some people." After the State rested, defense counsel called McClaugherty to the stand, where he was the last witness to testify.
During McClaugherty's cross-examination, Montoya repeated statements he claimed were contained in witness statements to the police and drew a hearsay objection from defense counsel.
During his testimony, McCaugherty denied that he handled or fired a gun on the night of the murder. On cross-examination, Montoya asked McCaugherty if he told his sister and his roommate what happened that night. McCaugherty answered: "I had told them, yes, I was there and I ran."
Montoya continued to question McCaugherty while holding papers in his hand:
Q: Is that all you told them?
A: I'm pretty sure.
Q: You're aware I've got statements? You got copies of the statements.
A: Yes.
Q: So why are they lying about you then?
A: Can you tell me what you're referring to?
At this point defense counsel objected to the State's line of questioning. During the subsequent bench conference, defense counsel argued to the court:
Defense: He's trying to impeach him with hearsay that's never been admitted into evidence.
[Montoya]: Inconsistent statements of admission.
Court: Do we have statements from these people that say something opposite to what he's saying?
[Montoya]: When they were talking about the shooting, at first he —
Court: I think what you're doing is the objection is really to the form of the question. You can ask him, "Would it surprise you if somebody else said this, like as far as something — you know, why are they lying about you?" You're assuming facts not in evidence, so I'm going to sustain the objection on that particular ground, okay?
[Montoya] then returned to the cross-examination by asking Defendant, "[s]ir, would it surprise you to hear that your sister, Sarah Tucker, gave a statement to the police 6/19/99, the day after or the day, that morning, that said that you admitted to her that you shot —." At this point defense counsel objected again. At the bench conference, defense counsel argued:
Defense: He is attempting to impeach him with extrinsic evidence of which I have no opportunity to cross-examine him with, under what circumstances or anything else.
Court: Anything for your record?
[Montoya]: Your Honor, [Sarah] Tucker is actually his sister. She's been subpoenaed. She's been available. She won't come up to our office. [Defense counsel] has had the opportunity to interview her.
Court: The question that's being asked is whether or not he agrees with this or not is not — I mean because this person can always be brought in to explain it, so I'm going to allow him to proceed and allow him to ask the question, so I'm going to overrule the objection.
[Montoya] then continued to question Defendant:
Q: Do you remember the question?
A: Yes.
Q: Does it surprise you?
A: Yes.
Q: How about your roommate, Sherri Goen? Does it surprise you that she also made the same statement?
A: Yes.
Q: That you admitted shooting?
A: Yes.
Q: Bragged about it?
A: Yes.
Id. ¶¶ 11-14. During redirect examination, Defendant disagreed with Montoya's version of the girls' police statements saying that he had read the statements and they contained references only to him denying any shooting. At this point in the redirect, Montoya objected and argued to the district court that defense counsel just "elicited a lie," stating: "He said he shot. Do you want me to let that go?" and "They both admit that he said that he shot at the guys." Defense counsel responded that the State was free to bring in the declarant of those statements, but that Montoya's characterizations of the statements "should have never come in in the first place."...
Montoya emphasized during his closing argument the Coriz had not deal with the prosecution and had come forward to testify because "it was the right thing to do." Montoya was lying.
Coriz had a deal to get out of prison on an assault and battery with a dangerous weapon that had been filed against him in Sandoval County.
The indictment McClaugherty arose from a shooting in Albuquerque over an argument wherein Ricky Solisz argued with a girl on the phone. The conversation allegedly concluded with Solisz threatening to slap or kick her. The girl was at a party at McClaugherty's apartment, and McClaugherty took umbrage when he was told of Solisz's aggression. McClaugherty and his friend Rodrigo Dominguez argued with Solisz on the telephone, and eventually Solisz agreed to bring his friends to a fight where McClaugherty and his friends would defend the girl from the disrespect. The two groups agreed to meet at a shopping center parking lot and arrived there in separate cars.
McClaugherty arrived with Dominguez, Nachima Coriz, and others at the rendezvous. Solisz arrived with his friends, Vincent Martinez and Eloy Sandoval. Martinez brandished a baseball bat. Id. ¶ 6. There was testimony that McClaugherty and his friends brought two handguns and a shotgun with them. Shots fired from McClaugherty's group fatally wounded Solisz and injured Martinez. The police determined that the fatal shot had come from a handgun; however, they recovered only one handgun and they could not determine if that gun had fired the fatal shot. After the early morning shootout, McClaugherty and Coriz hid all day in a nearby apartment. That evening, Coriz turned himself in to the police and gave them a statement inculpating McClaugherty and Dominguez.
The prosecution's case rested almost soley on the testimony of Coriz, who as not charged in the shooting.
Defendant's trial began on February 28, 2001. At trial, Coriz testified against Defendant. Coriz was the only witness to identify Defendant as one of the men who fired a gun on the night of the murder. Coriz claimed that Defendant carried a pistol to the scene on the night of the murder. He testified that he saw Defendant and another person get out of the Cadillac and run toward a fence that bordered the parking lot. While running, Coriz testified, Defendant turned and shot at the Neon between five and seven times, then turned back and jumped over the fence. Coriz testified that after they returned to the apartment, he heard Defendant tell his sister that they "went and shot at some people."
Coriz testified for the State at McClaugherty's trial and was the only witness to identify McClaugherty as one of the young men who fired a gun on the night of the murder. Coriz testified that McClaugherty carried a pistol to the scene on the night of the murder and that he saw McClaugherty and another person get out of their car and run toward a fence bordering the parking lot. Coriz claimed that McClaugherty turned and shot at Solisz's car between five and seven times while he was running, then turned and jumped over the fence. Coriz also testified that after he, McClaugherty and Dominguez returned to Defendant's apartment, he heard Defendant tell his sister that they "went and shot at some people." After the State rested, defense counsel called McClaugherty to the stand, where he was the last witness to testify.
During McClaugherty's cross-examination, Montoya repeated statements he claimed were contained in witness statements to the police and drew a hearsay objection from defense counsel.
During his testimony, McCaugherty denied that he handled or fired a gun on the night of the murder. On cross-examination, Montoya asked McCaugherty if he told his sister and his roommate what happened that night. McCaugherty answered: "I had told them, yes, I was there and I ran."
Montoya continued to question McCaugherty while holding papers in his hand:
Q: Is that all you told them?
A: I'm pretty sure.
Q: You're aware I've got statements? You got copies of the statements.
A: Yes.
Q: So why are they lying about you then?
A: Can you tell me what you're referring to?
At this point defense counsel objected to the State's line of questioning. During the subsequent bench conference, defense counsel argued to the court:
Defense: He's trying to impeach him with hearsay that's never been admitted into evidence.
[Montoya]: Inconsistent statements of admission.
Court: Do we have statements from these people that say something opposite to what he's saying?
[Montoya]: When they were talking about the shooting, at first he —
Court: I think what you're doing is the objection is really to the form of the question. You can ask him, "Would it surprise you if somebody else said this, like as far as something — you know, why are they lying about you?" You're assuming facts not in evidence, so I'm going to sustain the objection on that particular ground, okay?
[Montoya] then returned to the cross-examination by asking Defendant, "[s]ir, would it surprise you to hear that your sister, Sarah Tucker, gave a statement to the police 6/19/99, the day after or the day, that morning, that said that you admitted to her that you shot —." At this point defense counsel objected again. At the bench conference, defense counsel argued:
Defense: He is attempting to impeach him with extrinsic evidence of which I have no opportunity to cross-examine him with, under what circumstances or anything else.
Court: Anything for your record?
[Montoya]: Your Honor, [Sarah] Tucker is actually his sister. She's been subpoenaed. She's been available. She won't come up to our office. [Defense counsel] has had the opportunity to interview her.
Court: The question that's being asked is whether or not he agrees with this or not is not — I mean because this person can always be brought in to explain it, so I'm going to allow him to proceed and allow him to ask the question, so I'm going to overrule the objection.
[Montoya] then continued to question Defendant:
Q: Do you remember the question?
A: Yes.
Q: Does it surprise you?
A: Yes.
Q: How about your roommate, Sherri Goen? Does it surprise you that she also made the same statement?
A: Yes.
Q: That you admitted shooting?
A: Yes.
Q: Bragged about it?
A: Yes.
Id. ¶¶ 11-14. During redirect examination, Defendant disagreed with Montoya's version of the girls' police statements saying that he had read the statements and they contained references only to him denying any shooting. At this point in the redirect, Montoya objected and argued to the district court that defense counsel just "elicited a lie," stating: "He said he shot. Do you want me to let that go?" and "They both admit that he said that he shot at the guys." Defense counsel responded that the State was free to bring in the declarant of those statements, but that Montoya's characterizations of the statements "should have never come in in the first place."...
Montoya emphasized during his closing argument the Coriz had not deal with the prosecution and had come forward to testify because "it was the right thing to do." Montoya was lying.
Coriz had a deal to get out of prison on an assault and battery with a dangerous weapon that had been filed against him in Sandoval County.
Outcome:
McClaugherty was found guilty on March 6, 2001, and was sentenced to life in prison plus 12 years.
Montoya and Coriz both testified at McClaugherty motion for a new trial hearing and denied that their was any deal between Montoya and Coriz in exchange for Coriz's testimony.
Bernalillo County District Judge Neil Candelaria granted the motion and dismissed the charges but then reversed his ruling.
McClaugherty appealed and in July 2008 the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed Candelaria's ruling based on a finding that Montoya had knowingly presented false evidence.
The charges against McClaugherty were dismissed.
The New Mexico Supreme Court ordered a new trial on June 27, 2008.
Montoya and Coriz both testified at McClaugherty motion for a new trial hearing and denied that their was any deal between Montoya and Coriz in exchange for Coriz's testimony.
Bernalillo County District Judge Neil Candelaria granted the motion and dismissed the charges but then reversed his ruling.
McClaugherty appealed and in July 2008 the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed Candelaria's ruling based on a finding that Montoya had knowingly presented false evidence.
The charges against McClaugherty were dismissed.
The New Mexico Supreme Court ordered a new trial on June 27, 2008.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
McCaugherty was convicted of a crime he did not commit as a result of prosecutorial misconduct and perjured testimony.
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of New Mexico v. Charles McClaugherty?
The outcome was: McClaugherty was found guilty on March 6, 2001, and was sentenced to life in prison plus 12 years. Montoya and Coriz both testified at McClaugherty motion for a new trial hearing and denied that their was any deal between Montoya and Coriz in exchange for Coriz's testimony. Bernalillo County District Judge Neil Candelaria granted the motion and dismissed the charges but then reversed his ruling. McClaugherty appealed and in July 2008 the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed Candelaria's ruling based on a finding that Montoya had knowingly presented false evidence. The charges against McClaugherty were dismissed. The New Mexico Supreme Court ordered a new trial on June 27, 2008.
Which court heard State of New Mexico v. Charles McClaugherty?
This case was heard in Second District Court, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, NM. The presiding judge was Not available.
Who were the attorneys in State of New Mexico v. Charles McClaugherty?
Plaintiff's attorney: Kenny Montoya for the Bernalillo County New Mexico District Attorney's Office s. Defendant's attorney: John Cline and Zachary A. Ives on appeal..
When was State of New Mexico v. Charles McClaugherty decided?
This case was decided on March 6, 2001.