Likely plea deals in 2022 sword killing slowed by testing delay
A backlog at the state forensic lab for DNA has paused murder cases of Kiara McCulley and Isaac Apodaca and may soon run up against law guaranteeing speedy trial
Criminal charges against a Santa Fe couple accused in the 2022 slaying of 21-year-old Grace Jennings with a sword likely will be resolved through plea agreements, attorneys told a state district judge Monday.
However, a prosecutor said the case can’t be resolved until the New Mexico Department of Public Safety’s forensic laboratory completes DNA testing, and it’s unclear when that will be because of a backlog that might be caused by the lab’s relocation last year.
Kiara McCulley, 21, and her boyfriend, Isaac Apodaca, 27, are both charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. McCulley is accused of stabbing Jennings to death Oct. 29, 2022, with a 3-foot sword, and Apodaca is accused of conspiring with McCulley and convincing her to carry out the killing the morning after the three had a spent a night together inside a garage at McCulley’s mother’s home on the city’s south side, where the couple lived.
Police found Jennings’ body and what appeared to be a bloody sword inside the detached garage on Jaguar Drive, according to a criminal complaint. Investigators also found a series of text messages in which Apodaca seemed to encourage McCulley to kill Jennings, police and court records said.
Defense attorney Tom Clark, who represents McCulley, told state District Judge T. Glenn Ellington during a hearing Monday the parties are “actively engaged in plea negotiations.”
But Deputy District Attorney Haley Murphy said without the DNA results, the case is in “a holding pattern.”
“I can’t really make a plea offer to either side until I’ve got that DNA,” she said.
Murphy said she was told in January the case was about 30th on the forensic lab’s waiting list. “They still haven’t assigned an analyst ... so we are going to try to see what
cages we can rattle on that front,” she added.
Attorneys for both McCulley and Apodaca asserted their clients’ right to a speedy trial.
“We’ve been hearing about the DNA delay at the last several hearings on this case,” said defense attorney Megan Mitsunaga, who represents Apodaca.
“The uncertainty and the fact that we don’t really have a time frame for when we are going to get those results is extremely concerning given Mr. Apodaca’s detention in the matter,” she said.
Clark said, “I understand the predicament the government is in, but this is a serious case and these folks have been sitting [in jail] for awhile.”
Murphy speculated the delay could be due to the lab’s move to a new building in August. “They shut down testing for awhile while they moved facilities,” she said.
Nathan Lederman, a spokesman for the District Attorney’s Office, wrote in an email Monday “receipts indicate that law enforcement submitted the items to the lab in December 2022.”
Forensic laboratory Director Katharina Babcock referred questions about the testing delay to Department of Public Safety spokesman Herman Lovato.
Lovato wrote in an email “a strict code of ethics and confidentiality requirements prevent the forensic laboratory from disclosing any type of information related to forensic evidence submitted for testing.”
The lab’s relocation was complicated and required “the highest safeguards for evidence relocation, and equipment transfer, testing, calibration, certification, and reaccreditation of each discipline,” Lovato wrote.
He added the lab’s forensic DNA section, which had to clear “stringent” FBI and reaccreditation standards, resumed full testing Feb. 5.
New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association President Jennifer Burrill, who did not work on the case but practices in the First Judicial District, said Monday there have been times when the state lab has been “substantially backed up,” particularly when it comes to testing suspected drugs, but it recently seemed to be moving more quickly.
The state doesn’t have a clear rule delineating when a person’s speedy trial rights have been violated, Burrill said. Rather, the court has guidelines regarding how long a case must be pending before a defendant can begin to motion for dismissal based on a violation.
The time begins ticking when a defendant is arrested, Burrill said, and the court generally allows one year for simple cases to be adjudicated, 15 months for cases of intermediate complexity and at least 18 months for the resolution of more complex cases.
After those time frames have elapsed and a defendant has raised the issue, Burrill said, a court examines the reason for any delays and who was responsible when determining whether a defendant has a valid claim.