Domestic violence case ruling reversed

Supreme Court says original judge erred

The state Supreme Court on Monday reversed a district judge and a Court of Appeals decision and sent a domestic violence case back to District court.

The court found that the original judge erred in throwing out the initial statements the victim made to police. The judge excluded the statements because the victim later decided not to cooperate with authorities.

In the majority opinion, written by Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, the high court determined that the “forfeiture-by-wrongdoing” exemption should have been applied in the case. That exemption would have allowed prosecutors to use some of the victim’s original statements about the incident during trial. Prosecutors had tried to use the victim’s grand

jury testimony, interviews with police and a recording of a 911 call in the case against Joshua Maestas, who was born in 1990.

Maestas was arrested in December 2009 on suspicion of domestic violence.

But the case against him started to unravel when the victim stopped cooperating with police. She declined to answer questions about the December 2009 incident during pretrial interviews and at a court hearing.

Prosecutors moved to have 2nd Judicial District Judge Reed Sheppard allow prosecutors to use her original statements, even though Maestas wouldn’t have the ability to cross-examine her at trial.

Prosecutors argued that Maestas had forfeited his right to confront his accuser by trying to intimidate the victim to keep her from testifying. They cited hours of recorded conversation between the alleged victim and Maestas while he was incarcerated, including some calls in which he made threats against the victim and her mother, and asked the victim to lie, according to the ruling.

Sheppard declined to allow the statements to be used at trial, and the case was dismissed.

The Supreme Court overturned that decision Monday.

“Defendant’s conduct here … clearly had the potential for persuasive and coercive effect and thus constituted wrongful conduct,” Maes wrote for the court.

Justices Barbara Vigil, Charles Daniels and Judith Nakamura concurred with Maes. Justice Edward Chavez concurred in part and dissented in part.

Maestas’ attorney couldn’t be reached for comment on Monday.