Attorneys seek to bar gun from ‘beer pong’ trial

They say interview with defendant should have been terminated

Attorneys for a man accused in a fatal shooting stemming from a game of beer pong asked a judge Tuesday to exclude from trial his interview with police detectives along with the gun he allegedly used.

During a hearing Tuesday, Jack Daniel Trujillo’s defense attorneys said that on page 99 of the approximately 140-page transcript of his police interview, Trujillo asks specifically to call his attorney. But detectives continued the interview for 40 or so pages, and in that portion, Trujillo described the place where he abandoned the gun used in the shooting.

His attorneys say the gun should not be admitted at trial, either.

“If the interview had ceased right there, detectives would not have found that gun,” defense attorney Brittany Maldonado said.

Second Judicial District Judge Briana Zamora ruled partially on the motion Tuesday. The first 99 pages of the statement will be permitted at trial, but she will issue a written ruling regarding the admissibility of the remainder of the interview and the firearm.

According to police, Arturo Villa was shot and killed and Jaime Acevez was critically injured during a December 2015 brawl that broke out in a Southwest Albuquerque mobile-home park after the two lost a game of beer pong but refused to turn over the watch they bet on the game. Trujillo allegedly shot Acevez, and Esias Madrid allegedly shot Villa. Trujillo and Madrid’s cases have been severed.

Early this month, prosecutors agreed to drop a felony murder count against Trujillo in favor of the lesser included second-degree murder charge. Madrid is still facing first-degree murder and eight more felony charges, according to online court records.

Maldonado also argued Tuesday that the first 99 pages of the interview should be excluded because Trujillo did not give an affirmative response when he was asked whether he wanted to give his side of the story.

“He reluctantly says, ‘Uh, sure,’ ” she said.

Prosecutor Letitia Simms read aloud the portion of the interview where detectives advised Trujillo of his Miranda Rights, noting that he was asked repeatedly whether he understood his rights and responded each time by saying, “Yes, ma’am.”

She also argued that when Trujillo asked to call his attorney on

page 99 of the transcript, it was “not an affirmative assertion that he’s no longer willing to speak to them.”

According to the transcript, Trujillo asks, “Is there any way, uh, I can call somebody? Like, my attorney or something?”

A detective responds, asking if Trujillo said that he wanted to call his attorney. But a portion of Trujillo’s response is inaudible.

“Well, I got to get a hold of my, my (inaudible),” he said.

A detective then tells him that they’re “not supposed to let you make a phone call right now.” He said they would ask their boss and “might be able to let you call your mom.”

Simms said it sounded like Trujillo wanted to let someone know where he was.

“It seems like, in the context of this, he wants to call an attorney because he just wants to touch base with him,” Simms said, adding that Trujillo then reinitiated the interview. “There’s no indication of coercive police practices.”