Mistrial declared in Questa teen murder trial
A Taos County jury could not reach a verdict following a fourday murder trial for a Questa teenager charged with shooting and killing a 13-year-old girl at his father’s home last summer.
The jury returned to the courtroom after approximately eight hours of deliberation Tuesday
(March 5) to announce they could not reach a consensus on any of the four counts filed against 14-year-old Porfirio Brown: second-degree murder, two third-degree counts of tampering with evidence and one misdemeanor count of assault upon a peace officer.
An official tally found that two-thirds of the jury voted to find Brown “not guilty” on the murder charge. Because the jury could not reach a verdict, a mistrial was declared, meaning the 8th Judicial District Attorney’s Office may refile the case in the future.
On July 28, three officers from the Questa Police Department responded to a call regarding a possible drive-by shooting involving minors. On their way to the scene, police picked up a juvenile witness wearing bloody clothing who had been walking down the road. He led officers to the scene, where there were two other witnesses, including Brown, around Archuleta’s body.
The witnesses, including Brown, quickly abandoned the story about a drive-by shooting. Within hours, witnesses in the case began placing blame on Brown, saying he had accidentally shot Archuleta with a weapon that had been on the kitchen counter. Witnesses said Brown had been showing off firearms to them throughout the day.
According to the witnesses’ new story, Brown began pointing a revolver at his three guests while they hung out in the kitchen. No one took him seriously, except for Archuleta, who fought back against him. In their struggle, the firearm went off,
striking her. The witnesses told officers that Brown then dragged Archuleta outside to stage a drive-by shooting.
According to state police investigators, who took over the scene, there was ample evidence suggesting the scene had been cleaned, including a bloody mop. Crime scene reconstructionists used a forensic chemical that lit up when it came in contact with iron from blood. When applied to the kitchen floor of the Brown residence, it reacted positively, even revealing bootprints matching those of Brown, who witnesses said cleaned the scene before police arrived.
Defense attorney Lizzy Bunker has long argued the Questa officers did not respond to the scene with proper protocol, leaving witnesses unchecked and the scene unsecured. According to lapel footage, juvenile witnesses, including Brown, were able to freely wander about the scene, exiting and entering as they wished. The weapon used in the alleged crime has never been recovered, which Bunker attributed to a negligent response by police and argued as grounds to dismiss the case before it went to trial.
According to Questa police officers who testified at the trial, their main priority was tending to Archuleta, who was still alive when they arrived at the scene. The officers noted the chaos that ensued during the response and said they had acted in good faith. However, Craig Martin, a witness who testified as an expert in crime scene investigations, support Bunker’s assertion that the officers had been “grossly negligent.”
Martin said tending to the victim shouldn’t have required all three officers. While one officer performed CPR, he added, another could have isolated witnesses, and the third could have cordoned off the scene. At one point, a Questa officer told Brown to go inside to change his clothes, depositing the bloody ones into a plastic bag. Martin said this was negligent because there would have been no way of knowing what Brown was placing in the bag. Additionally, stains tend to duplicate when the clothing item is folded, he said.
While Brown’s clothes were collected, the bloody clothing the other witnesses were wearing was not, which Martin also classified as negligent police work. Bunker described the officers as having “tunnel vision” after the other witnesses pointed fingers at Brown.
In her opening and closing arguments, Bunker asserted the perpetrator of the alleged crime was Archuleta’s brother, one of the juvenile witnesses. According to her, he felt such immense guilt that Brown took the fall for him. Referring to testimony from the defendant’s mother and lapel footage from the scene of the alleged crime, she shifted the blame away from Brown throughout the trial.
Following the fatal shooting, Brown’s father, William Brown, became the first person in New Mexico to be charged with negligently making a firearm accessible to a minor, otherwise known as the Bennie Hargrove Law, a misdemeanor that went into effect about a month prior to the fatal shooting.
Porfirio Brown wept after the jury announced it could not reach a verdict on the murder charge and looked back at his family, including his mother and father, who were sitting behind him throughout the trial.
Prosecutors tried Porfirio Brown as a “youthful offender,” which in New Mexico means a juvenile defendant can receive an adult sentence if convicted. If the state were to downgrade the charge to involuntary manslaughter, Brown’s youthful offender status would be revoked and he would be tried as a juvenile.
Following the mistrial, Brown was released from custody.