People v. Cuevas.
2024 COA 84. No. 21CA1256. Murder in the First Degree—Sixth Amendment—Right to Decide the Objective of the Defense—Sufficiency of Evidence—Jury Instructions.
August 8, 2024
Police found M.L.’s body in a suitcase in a dumpster by a car wash. M.L.’s body was missing her head, feet, and hands. Surveillance video footage from the car wash showed a man with the same build as Cuevas, who is M.L.’s son, driving M.L.’s car and putting the suitcase in the dumpster. Cuevas was later seen driving by M.L.’s house in her SUV, and a police officer tried to pull him over. A high-speed chase ensued, but the officer lost sight of Cuevas and ended the chase. The next day, police responded to a report that a checkbook and duffel bag were stolen from a truck parked near a reservoir, and several hours later, Cuevas cashed a check taken from the truck. The police found the duffel bag in a motel room that had been paid for in cash and registered under Cuevas’s wife’s name. Police saw Cuevas and his wife walking near the motel, and they arrested them. Cuevas confessed that he had stabbed his mother M.L. to death but stated that he did not know what happened to her body, because he blacked out. Cuevas also admitted that he had sold M.L.’s car to a scrapyard for $70 and then fled with his wife in M.L.’s SUV, which they later abandoned near the reservoir. Several months after Cuevas’s arrest, the police found M.L.’s head, hands, and feet in a trash bag on the Arkansas River Trail. Cuevas was charged with first degree murder, vehicular eluding, first degree criminal trespass, and identity theft. Cuevas pleaded not guilty to each charge. A jury found him guilty of first degree murder, vehicular eluding, and identity theft.
On appeal, Cuevas argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he committed first degree murder, challenging the identity and deliberation elements of the crime. However, substantial evidence supported the identity element, including Cuevas’s confession. In addition, expert testimony from a forensic DNA analyst linked Cuevas to the trash bag and tools used to commit the crime. Substantial evidence also supported the deliberation element, including that Cuevas confessed that after he stabbed M.L. with a knife, she laughed at him, so he “continued to stab her”; M.L.’s body was concealed in a suitcase and placed in a dumpster; after M.L. died, Cuevas sold her new car and asked to have it crushed as soon as possible; and M.L.’s head, hands, and feet had been removed and either refrigerated or frozen after she died.
Cuevas also contended that his defense counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right to maintain innocence by conceding guilt on the lesser charges of vehicular eluding, first degree criminal trespass, and identity theft. The court of appeals concluded that a defendant’s not guilty plea is not equivalent to an express assertion of innocence. Rather, the only result of a not guilty plea is to require the prosecution to satisfy its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged crimes. And the record here does not indicate that Cuevas expressly objected to counsel’s concession. Accordingly, defense counsel’s unilateral decision to concede guilt on three lesser charges after Cuevas pleaded not guilty to the charges did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to autonomy in deciding the objectives of his defense.
Cuevas further argued that the court erred by denying his tendered jury instructions on guilt by association and mere presence because they were fundamental to his alternate suspect defense and record evidence supported that defense. However, defense counsel did not argue that the tendered instructions related to his theory of the case or were fundamental to his alternate suspect defense. And other jury instructions encompassed the tendered instructions, so the court acted within its discretion to deny the tendered instructions.
Cuevas also asserted that the court erred by denying defense counsel’s request to recross-examine an expert witness. Here, counsel had an opportunity during cross-examination to ask the exact clarifying question he sought to ask on recross, and no new matters were raised on redirect, so there was no error.
Lastly, having found no errors, the court rejected Cuevas’s argument that cumulative error warrants reversal.
The judgment was affirmed.