June 11, 2015 – State of New Mexico v. Juan Cordova, No. 32,820

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Opinion Number:
Filing Date: 	June 11, 2015
NO. 32,820
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUAN CORDOVA,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY
Mary Marlowe-Sommer, District Judge
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellee
Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender
B. Douglas Wood, III, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant

OPINION
FRY, Judge.
{1} 	Defendant appeals his convictions for causing great bodily injury by vehicle,
aggravated driving while under the influence (DWI), knowingly leaving the scene of
an accident, and homicide by vehicle. Defendant raises a number of arguments.
However, the pertinent issue for this appeal is whether the district court erred in
determining that the emergency assistance doctrine justified the warrantless entry by
two Rio Arriba County sheriff’s deputies into Defendant’s residence. Because we
conclude that the deputies did not have reasonable grounds to believe that a genuine
emergency existed requiring their immediate aid, we hold that the district court erred
in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.
BACKGROUND
{2} 	The facts underlying Defendant’s convictions are as follows. A group of
motorcyclists returning from a motorcycle rally in Red River, New Mexico, were
traveling on State Road 76 near Chimayo, New Mexico. Defendant, driving a truck
in the opposite direction, crossed the center lane and struck the motorcyclists. Several
of the motorcyclists were injured in the collision, and one, the lead motorcyclist, was
killed. Following the collision, Defendant drove a short distance before he and two
passengers abandoned the vehicle.

2
{3} 	Deputy Paula Archuleta was one of the first deputies to respond to the scene.
A witness informed Deputy Archuleta that the abandoned truck was farther up the
road and that three individuals were seen running from the scene in the vicinity of the
Rio Chiquito. While a fellow deputy stayed with the victims, Deputy Archuleta began
investigating the abandoned truck. She noted damage on the front passenger side and
a cracked windshield on the driver side. After running the license plate, Deputy
Archuleta was informed that the truck belonged to Defendant. Deputy Archuleta
called Deputy Isaac Martinez, who was off-duty but lived nearby, and asked for his
assistance in searching for the suspects. The deputies first began searching the area
surrounding the Rio Chiquito. After being told by a volunteer firefighter where
Defendant lived, the deputies proceeded to Defendant’s residence.
{4} 	The deputies’ testimony at the preliminary hearing varied slightly on the events
that followed once they reached Defendant’s residence. Deputy Archuleta testified
that the door to the house was ajar and that she heard some type of “background
noise” in the home. She testified that she knocked and announced the
deputies’ presence and, upon getting no response, entered the home. Deputy Martinez,
however, testified that they did not knock or hear “background noises.” He testified
that the deputies announced their presence and walked into the home. Both deputies
testified that they entered the home with guns drawn.

3
{5} 	The deputies located Defendant in his bedroom lying on the bed. The deputies
asked if he was Juan Cordova. When Defendant responded that he was, the deputies
ordered him to put his hands up. They then told Defendant he was the suspected
driver, escorted Defendant out of the house, and told him that he was being detained
for questioning. The deputies testified that Defendant had a cut on his forehead,
although a physician who treated Defendant later testified that he did not recall such
an injury. When deputies asked if he was okay, Defendant responded that his truck
had been stolen and that he was not involved in the accident. Once the deputies
removed Defendant from the home, he was placed in handcuffs and searched. A set
of car keys was found in his front pocket. Defendant was taken to the sheriff’s
department and charged in relation to the death and injuries of the motorcyclists. A
chemical test would later show Defendant’s blood alcohol content to be 0.14.
{6} 	Before trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the deputies’
entry into his home was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. The district
court denied the motion to suppress and concluded that, under the emergency
assistance doctrine, the deputies’ warrantless entry into the home was justified by the
deputies’ concern for Defendant’s safety. See State v. Ryon, 2005-NMSC-005, ¶¶ 27,
39, 137 N.M. 174, 108 P.3d 1032 (holding that “police officers may enter a home

4
without a warrant or consent under the emergency assistance doctrine” when police
have “reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an
immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property”). The case
proceeded to trial, and Defendant was convicted on two counts of causing great bodily
injury by vehicle, two counts of aggravated DWI, one count of leaving the scene of
an accident, and one count of homicide by vehicle. Defendant now appeals.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
{7} 	We review a district court’s decision regarding a motion to suppress evidence
as a mixed question of fact and law. State v. Vandenburg, 2003-NMSC-030, ¶ 17, 134
N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19. “We view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party and defer to the district court’s findings of historical facts and witness credibility
when supported by substantial evidence.” Ryon, 2005-NMSC-005, ¶11. “The legality
of a search, however, ultimately turns on the question of reasonableness.” Id.
Reasonableness is determined de novo. Id.
Emergency Assistance Doctrine
{8} 	Defendant challenges the district court’s ruling that the deputies’ entry into
Defendant’s home was justified under the emergency assistance doctrine. While
“[w]arrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable,”

1Subsequent to our Supreme Court’s decision in Ryon, the United States
Supreme Court eliminated the second element of the Mitchell test because an officer’s
“subjective motivation is irrelevant.” Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 404
(2006). Although we state the Mitchell test as our Supreme Court adopted it in Ryon,
the subjective element of the test is ultimately immaterial to our analysis in this case.
5
the emergency assistance doctrine is one of the “few specific, narrowly defined
exceptions.” Id. ¶ 23. In Ryon, our Supreme Court adopted the three-part test utilized
in People v. Mitchell, 347 N.E.2d 607, 609 (N.Y. 1976). Ryon, 2005-NMSC-005, ¶
29. It is the state’s burden to establish all three elements. Id. First, “the police must
have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an
immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property.” Id.
(alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Second, “the search must
not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence.”1 Id. (alteration,
internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Finally, “there must be some
reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the
area or place to be searched.” Id. (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation
omitted).
{9} 	Defendant’s argument largely focuses on the first element. Defendant argues
that the deputies did not have sufficient information to reasonably believe that he was
in need of immediate aid. Defendant also argues, under the second element of the
Mitchell test, that without such reasonable belief, the deputies’ actions were primarily

6
motivated by their intention to apprehend him and gather evidence. In practice,
however, this distinction is irrelevant because without such reasonable grounds, the
deputies’ actions were unlawful.
{10} 	As recognized in Ryon, because of the strong privacy interest in the home, the
first element requires a genuine emergency. 2005-NMSC-005, ¶ 26. This means “a
strong perception that action is required to protect against imminent danger to life or
limb” and circumstances so “sufficiently compelling [as] to make a warrantless entry
into the home objectively reasonable[.]” 	Id. 	¶ 31. Reasonableness is “tested
objectively under the totality of the circumstances.” Id. ¶ 30. Useful factors for this
determination are the “purpose and nature of the dispatch, the exigency of the
situation based on the known facts, and the availability, feasibility and effectiveness
of alternatives to the type of intrusion actually accomplished.” Id. ¶ 32 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, generalized testimony regarding
a possible or potential emergency is insufficient to carry the state’s burden on this
element. Instead, “officers must have credible and specific information that a victim
is very likely to be located at a particular place and in need of immediate aid to avoid
great bodily harm or death.” Id. ¶ 42.
{11} 	We agree with Defendant that the State failed to establish that there were
reasonable grounds for the deputies to believe that an emergency necessitated their

7
immediate entry into Defendant’s home. The only specific information available to
the deputies at the time was that Defendant’s truck had been involved in an accident,
albeit a serious one, and that three individuals were seen abandoning the truck. At this
point, the deputies had no concrete information that Defendant was the driver involved
in the accident, or even at home. Id. ¶ 43 (noting that the officers were unaware if the
defendant was even in the home).
{12} 	Even assuming the deputies knew that Defendant was the driver, they had no
specific information that he was seriously injured and in need of immediate aid. See
id. (stating that the officers’ information was insufficient where they “did not know
the nature or extent of the injury” or even “whether he was injured). There were no
obvious indications in the cab of the truck, such as blood or impacts to the windshield
coming from inside, that any of the vehicle’s occupants were injured. See City of
Fargo v. Ternes, 522 N.W.2d 176, 177-78 (N.D. 1994) (holding that one circumstance
justifying the officers’ reasonable belief that a driver in an accident suffered
sufficiently serious injuries was the presence of “blood on the seat and blood mingled
with glass on the dashboard and steering wheel”). More importantly, none of the
witnesses who saw the individuals fleeing the truck told deputies that they appeared
injured. See State v. Geisler, 576 A.2d 1283, 1289 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990), vacated on
other grounds, 498 U.S. 1019 (1991) (stating that the lack of indication by witnesses

8
that the driver was injured or in need of assistance cast doubt on the notion that the
“driver was injured to the point of needing immediate aid”). Indeed, the fact that the
suspects had fled the truck, and, in Defendant’s case, conceivably had run home, is
inconsistent with the degree of injury necessitating immediate police assistance by
way of a warrantless entry. See State v. Seavey, 789 A.2d 621, 624 (N.H. 2001)
(stating that a witness’s observation of the defendant walking away from the accident
and down the street “indicated that she was not physically impaired”); Commonwealth
v. DiGeronimo, 652 N.E.2d 148, 155 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995) (“[The defendant’s]
driving off from the accident scene suggested lack of incapacitating injury.”).
{13} 	Finally, no circumstances at Defendant’s home indicated a genuine emergency.
No signs of injury, such as blood, were noted on the property. See People v.
Copenhaver, 21 P.3d 413, 416 (Colo. App. 2000) (affirming the officer’s warrantless
entry where the officer noted blood inside the vehicle involved in the crash and a trail
of blood leading from the outside of the defendant’s apartment through the residence).
No sounds from inside the house alerted the deputies that Defendant was in need of
immediate aid. DiGeronimo, 652 N.E.2d at 155 (noting that sounds of moaning or
distress may be indicative of an emergency inside the residence). And, while in some
cases an occupant’s failure to respond to repeated knocking can indicate an
emergency, 	especially 	in 	instances 	where 	the 	officers 	already 	have 	specific

9
information that the victim is in the home and seriously injured, the deputies did not
have that chance here because they entered the home immediately after announcing
their presence. See Ternes, 522 N.W.2d at 177-78 (holding that the warrantless entry
was permissible where the officers knew the defendant was inside, had been involved
in a serious accident, was bleeding, and where they received no response after
knocking on the front door for several minutes, entered the residence). Given these
circumstances, we conclude that the deputies did not have reasonable grounds to
believe that Defendant might have been injured to an extent requiring their immediate
entry and assistance.
{14} 	Although the State failed to establish that the objective circumstances
necessitated a warrantless entry, we are similarly unconvinced that the deputies’
testimony was sufficient to establish that a genuine emergency necessitated their
entry. Both deputies testified that the reason they entered the home was because they
were “concerned” for Defendant’s safety. Deputy Martinez acknowledged that they
did not know what Defendant’s injuries were, if any. Consistent with the deputies’
lack of specific information, Deputy Martinez characterized the entry as a “welfare
check.” However, this testimony does not establish the requisite circumstances needed
to demonstrate a legitimate emergency requiring immediate police assistance. State
v. Baca, 2007-NMCA-016, ¶ 31, 141 N.M. 65, 150 P.3d 1015 (“Ryon makes it clear

10
that the burden to demonstrate an emergency is high.”); State v. Martin, 193 P.3d 993,
998-99 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (stating that while the officers’ testimony regarding
concern about the defendant’s well-being and if she was “okay” after she was
involved in hit and run “might reveal well-founded speculation that perhaps all was
not well with defendant, it falls far short of revealing a belief that immediate
intervention was necessary to protect her life.”). Instead, this testimony is the type of
speculation and conjecture that we have previously rejected as supporting an officer’s
warrantless entry under the emergency assistance doctrine. See Baca, 2007-NMCA-
016, ¶ 27 (“Speculation and conjecture are insufficient to establish an emergency at
hand and an immediate need for police assistance.” (alteration, internal quotation
marks, and citation omitted)); Ryon, 2005-NMSC-005, ¶ 43 (stating that the officers
had insufficient information to justify entry into the residence where they “had only
generalized, nonspecific information that [the d]efendant might be inside [the home]
and that he might have sustained a head or face injury.”). We therefore conclude that
the district court erroneously denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence
seized as a result of the deputies’ unreasonable entry into Defendant’s home.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
{15} 	Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction

11
for causing great bodily injury by vehicle to Vivian Woodall contrary to NMSA 1978,
Section 66-8-101 (2004). Because we are reversing the district court’s judgment, we
consider whether sufficient evidence supported this conviction in order to determine
whether double jeopardy principles would prohibit retrial of Defendant on this charge.
State v. Valino, 2012-NMCA-105, ¶ 18, 287 P.3d 372. Because Defendant does not
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his other convictions, we do not
undertake a similar double jeopardy analysis in connection with those charges.
{16} 	“When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must
determine whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature
exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every
element essential to a conviction.” See State v. Templeton, 2007-NMCA-108, ¶ 28,
142 N.M. 369, 165 P.3d 1145 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A
reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state,
resolving all conflicts therein and indulging all permissible inferences therefrom in
favor of the verdict.” State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753
P.2d 1314.
{17} 	In order to convict Defendant of causing great bodily injury by vehicle, the
State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) “[t]he defendant
operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or while

12
under the influence of valium, . . . or in a reckless manner”; (2) “[t]he defendant
thereby caused the great bodily injury to Vivian Woodall”, and (3) “[t]his happened
in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico on or about the 28th day of May 2011.”
Defendant specifically argues that there was insufficient evidence that Woodall’s
injuries constituted great bodily injury. Consistent with UJI 14-131, great bodily
injury was defined in the jury instructions as “an injury to a person which creates a
high probability of death or results in serious disfigurement or results in permanent
or prolonged impairment of the use of any member or organ of the body.”
{18} 	Woodall testified at trial that she experienced severe bruising, road rash, and
bruised ribs as a result of the collision. The bruising and road rash covered her right
side. She testified that she was unable to work for approximately a month. In addition,
for approximately the first two weeks, she was largely unable to move because of the
extreme pain from her bruised ribs. She testified that at certain times she still
experiences pain resulting from her bruised ribs.
{19} 	Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury could
determine that Woodall suffered great bodily injury. “Prolonged impairment” is not
a technical term. Cf. State v. Jim, 1988-NMCA-092, ¶ 20, 107 N.M. 779, 765 P.2d 195
(construing similar term, “protracted impairment”). “Prolonged impairment,” like
“protracted impairment,” means a “lengthy or unusually long time under the

13
circumstances.” Id. ¶ 21 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, it was
for the jury to determine whether the impairment was for a sufficiently extended
period of time so as to meet this definition. Id. In this case, the jury determined that
Woodall’s extreme and immobilizing pain over the course of the month, in addition
to recurrent bouts of pain, were sufficient to constitute great bodily injury, and we will
not interfere with its determination. Accordingly, sufficient evidence supported
Defendant’s conviction on this charge, and retrial on this charge is not barred.
CONCLUSION
{20} 	For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s denial of Defendant’s
motion to suppress and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{21} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________
CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
WE CONCUR:
____________________________
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
____________________________
RODERICK KENNEDY, Judge