New Mexico Supreme Court orders new trial for 2 men convicted in deadly shooting
In a unanimous decision, the court concluded that a district court wrongly excluded an eyewitness from being called to testify at trial, which deprived Jesus Garcia and Alexandro Montelongo-Murillo of their constitutional right to present a defense.
Story continues below
Community: NM Dancewear closes its doors for good, leaving hole in dance community
Food: Los Ranchos restaurant named best spot for brunch in the state by Yelp
Crime: ABQ woman frustrated, two vehicles stolen from hospital parking lot days apart
Film: Do you recognize these 'El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie' filming locations?
The witness, Lorenzo Montaño, was a neighbor who saw the drive-by shooting and identified a man who was never charged in the crime as one of the assailants, according to a news release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.
The district court excluded Montaño as a witness after conducting a hearing, concluding that the defense failed to comply with a requirement in the rules of criminal procedure to identify its witnesses by name and address within 30 days after the arraignment of a defendant. The trial court also found it prejudicial to the prosecution for the defense to wait until just before trial to identify a witness.
The Supreme Court determined that the defense met the requirements for notifying the prosecution of witnesses and that 'neither the State nor the defense is required to retype the names and addresses of an opposing party's witnesses onto their witness list' under procedural rules.
'As Defendant Garcia persuasively argues, there is little doubt that Montaño's testimony was crucial to the defense because he was an eyewitness to the homicide at issue and he would testify that someone else – a plausible alternate suspect – committed the crime. This evidence is quintessential exculpatory evidence that, if believed, could completely change the outcome of trial,' the court wrote in an opinion by Justice Julie J. Vargas.
The court also rejected a defense argument that the surviving brother's identification of the defendants should be suppressed.
A jury convicted Garcia and Montelongo-Murillo of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. They were each sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and an additional 18 years for the other offenses.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico ordered a new trial.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Abrego Garcia's lawyers want smuggling charges dismissed on grounds of vindictive prosecution
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia asked a federal judge on Tuesday to dismiss a human smuggling case against him, saying the government was prosecuting the Maryland construction worker to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador. Their motion filed in court said attempts to dismiss indictments on the grounds of 'selective or vindictive prosecution' are infrequent and rarely succeed, 'but if there has ever been a case for dismissal on those grounds, this is that case.' The attorneys said senior cabinet members, Justice Department leaders and President Donald Trump mounted unprecedented public attacks on Abrego Garcia and that 'vindictiveness is clear from the record.' Acting U.S. Attorney Robert E. McGuire in Tennessee, where Abrego Garcia is in jail, said in an email prosecutors would have no other comment beyond what they file in response to the motion. No prosecutor motion was filed as of late Tuesday. Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over Trump's immigration policies following his wrongful expulsion to El Salvador in March. Trump's administration violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there. The administration claimed Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn't charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.' Tuesday's motion alleged the government was trying to paint Abrego Garcia as a criminal to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador and to avoid 'the embarrassment of accepting responsibility for its unlawful conduct." The motion said the government also aimed to change public opinion about Abrego Garcia's deportation. Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked the court at least to order a hearing on the government's motives. The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on. A federal judge in Maryland last month prohibited the Trump administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he's released from jail. The judge ordered the government to provide three business days notice if Immigration and Customs Enforcement intends to initiate deportation proceedings against him.
Associated Press
14 hours ago
- Associated Press
Abrego Garcia's lawyers want smuggling charges dismissed on grounds of vindictive prosecution
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia asked a federal judge on Tuesday to dismiss a human smuggling case against him, saying the government was prosecuting the Maryland construction worker to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador. Their motion filed in court said attempts to dismiss indictments on the grounds of 'selective or vindictive prosecution' are infrequent and rarely succeed, 'but if there has ever been a case for dismissal on those grounds, this is that case.' The attorneys said senior cabinet members, Justice Department leaders and President Donald Trump mounted unprecedented public attacks on Abrego Garcia and that 'vindictiveness is clear from the record.' Acting U.S. Attorney Robert E. McGuire in Tennessee, where Abrego Garcia is in jail, said in an email prosecutors would have no other comment beyond what they file in response to the motion. No prosecutor motion was filed as of late Tuesday. Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over Trump's immigration policies following his wrongful expulsion to El Salvador in March. Trump's administration violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there. The administration claimed Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn't charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.' Tuesday's motion alleged the government was trying to paint Abrego Garcia as a criminal to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador and to avoid 'the embarrassment of accepting responsibility for its unlawful conduct.' The motion said the government also aimed to change public opinion about Abrego Garcia's deportation. Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked the court at least to order a hearing on the government's motives. The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on. A federal judge in Maryland last month prohibited the Trump administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he's released from jail. The judge ordered the government to provide three business days notice if Immigration and Customs Enforcement intends to initiate deportation proceedings against him.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's attorneys move to dismiss criminal case
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's attorneys accused federal prosecutors on Tuesday of "vindictive and selective prosecution" in a motion seeking to dismiss the criminal charges against him. Abrego Garcia could be released from Tennessee criminal custody on Friday, when U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes's temporary stay is set to expire. This comes after a separate judge ruled last month that Abrego Garcia must be returned to Maryland if he is released. In the 25-page filing, Abrego Garcia's attorneys argued that the government charged him "because he refused to acquiesce in the government's violation of his due process rights." MORE: Justice Department investigating 2022 Abrego Garcia traffic stop: Sources "Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been singled out by the United States government," his attorneys said. The Salvadoran native was deported in March to El Salvador's CECOT mega-prison -- despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation due to fear of persecution -- after the Trump administration claimed he was a member of the criminal gang MS-13, which he denies. He was brought back to the U.S. in May to face charges in Tennessee of allegedly transporting undocumented migrants. In the filing on Tuesday, the attorneys said that Abrego Garcia was "sent on his way without so much as a traffic ticket" after the Tennessee Highway Patrol stopped their client in 2022. "Yet three years later, unrelatedly, the government picked Mr. Abrego up off the street—along with others with similar immigration status—as part of a shock-and-awe immigration enforcement push," they said. MORE: Timeline: Wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador After Abrego Garcia's wrongful removal, the attorneys said the government "responded not with contrition, or with any effort to fix its mistake, but with defiance." "A group of the most senior officials in the United States sought vengeance: they began a public campaign to punish Mr. Abrego for daring to fight back, culminating in the criminal investigation that led to the charges in this case," they said. Abrego Garcia's attorneys said in their filing the government is using the criminal case to punish their client for "successfully fighting his unlawful removal." "That is a constitutional violation of the most basic sort," they said. "The indictment must be dismissed."
