State v. Flores

── State v. Flores ── Court: New Mexico Supreme Court Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Filing Date: May 14, 2026 No. S-1-SC-40650 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL N. FLORES, JR., Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY James M. Hudson, District Judge Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Kimberly Chavez Cook, Appellate Defender Joelle N. Gonzales, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Walter M. Hart, III, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellee DECISION BACON, Justice. {1} On an early Sunday morning in July 2022, a masked shooter opened fire on a group of teenagers gathered at a home in southeastern Roswell. Fifteen-year-old Damyn Rodriguez (Victim) was shot and killed. Three other teenagers were injured in the gunfire. The primary resident of that home, Angelita Duran, was threatened by the shooter but was not injured. The State identified Angelita’s recent ex-boyfriend, Defendant Daniel Flores, as the shooter after his cell phone and truck were found near the crime scene. Defendant disputed this identification at trial; but a jury subsequently convicted him of murder and aggravated assault. {2} Defendant now seeks to overturn these convictions on appeal. He claims the district court abused its discretion in admitting several exhibits, including photographs showing Defendant posing with firearms and reports showing the text messages and images extracted from his cell phone. Defendant also challenges the lay opinion testimony of an investigating officer about several street camera videos which showed Defendant’s truck circling Angelita’s neighborhood shortly before the shooting. For the reasons discussed herein, we reject Defendant’s evidentiary challenges and affirm his convictions. We resolve this appeal through a nonprecedential decision because the issues are answerable by existing law. Rule 12-405(B)(1), (3) NMRA. I. BACKGROUND {3} Officers received reports of shots fired in a residential neighborhood in southeastern Roswell around 3:00 a.m. on Sunday, July 24, 2022. The shooting took place at Angelita’s house. Angelita was at home visiting with her friend Marissa Rivera, Victim, and two other teenaged boys at the time. Earlier that evening, the group had been out driving around Roswell in Marissa’s vehicle; but they had decided to settle at Angelita’s home before the shooting. The teenagers were drinking, smoking, and listening to music around the kitchen table when they noticed the headlights of a vehicle pulling up outside the house. One of the teenagers opened the front door to see who had arrived. {4} Peering into the dark outside, Angelita saw a larger male who was wearing a mask and dressed in dark or black clothing. Marissa saw a black figure with a gun. The masked shooter moved aggressively towards the house, lifted the weapon, and opened fire. One of the shots grazed Marissa’s chin and struck a nearby door. Another shot struck Victim in the neck. Subsequently he collapsed and died on the kitchen floor. One of the other boys was shot in the arm; the other was shot in the chest. Both boys survived their injuries. {5} Angelita was threatened by the shooter but was not shot. She took off running down the street towards a nearby family member’s home. Marissa, who had covered her face after the initial shots, surveyed the others’ injuries and then joined Angelita down the street once she realized the shooter was gone. The two surviving boys went outside screaming for help, and a few neighbors cal