On Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court not only vacated Desiree Lensegrav’s murder, kidnapping, tampering with evidence, and conspiracy to commit murder—it barred the State from charging Lensegrav again on Double Jeopardy grounds (State v. Legnsegrav). The Court took this extreme step because of the prosecution’s extreme and egregious misconduct. But this case is also notable for the fact that Lensegrav’s trial counsel objected to almost none of the prosecution’s misconduct and the trial court sat by while it happened.
Lensegrav was charged in relation to the death of Joseph Morgas along with her husband Aram Montoya. While the exact details over who actually killed Morgas may be in disputed, Lensegrav and Montaya were both charged with his murder—and Montaya was charged with the attempted murder of Lensegrav. Later, Montoya pleaded guilty.
Fast forward to Lensegrav’s trial and the State apparently planned to focus its prosecution strategy around Montoya. At the last minute, however, the prosecutors removed Montoya from their witness list and decided to pursue another strategy. Lead prosecutor Cosme Ripol informed the court of this change just before jury selection began.
Once jury selection was over and opening statements began, Ripol’s new strategy became abundantly clear: to utterly destroy Lensegrav’s character throughout the trial. As the New Mexico Supreme Court summarized this strategy:
Despite the State having removed Montoya from the witness list, ADA Ripol nevertheless used his opening statement to expose the jury to Montoya’s incriminating allegations against Defendant. Bolstered with copious amounts of other inflammatory and inadmissible evidence, including allegations that Defendant was a “witch” and a “bruja” (a term for “witch” in Spanish) who controlled Montoya through her menstrual blood, ADA Ripol embarked on a three-day-long exercise in pathos and character assassination that utterly deprived Defendant of a fair trial that is guaranteed by the New Mexico Constitution.
Ripol also stated in opening that the jury would hear from Montoya and how he was only involved because he loved Lensegrav—despite having taken Montoya off the witness list and having no intention to call him as a witness. Ripol the continued pushing this narrative of Lensegrav being a diabolic witch through his questioning of witnesses.
As part of its case, Ripol and the second prosecutor brought in evidence obtained from the river where evidence was taken and from Morgas remains. The evidence stank so badly that the court ended trial early. The next day the smell was so bad that the court had an officer carry the materials past the jury and told them that it would be the only opportunity to see the evidence because of the smell.
In his closing Ripol returned to the witchcraft and then brought up the smell:
You know, folks. Back in the 60s there was a saying: ‘karma is a bitch.’ The choices that we make influence who and what we are. One of the poignant elements in this trial is that each and every one of us literally smelled the stench of death, caused by this woman, and that she took responsibility for.
The stench of death that each and every one of us could smell, so that the court had to adjourn early because of the biohazard and the reek. We just didn’t see and hear about death: we smelled it.
And do you know who admitted? You do know who admitted to being responsible for the stench! Of death! That permeated this courtroom. [Defendant.] She owned up to responsibility. And when she had a chance to deny responsibility, was before you was left speechless.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the State demands, asks, requires that you go back and deliberate and find [Defendant] guilty for the stench of death that permeated this courtroom.
After two hours, Lensegrav was convicted on all counts.
On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court did not hold back—faulting both “Ripol’s outrageous behavior” and how “inexplicably, defense counsel did not object to the vast majority” of the misconduct.
As the Court explained, “prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error when it is so egregious and had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” Here:
At every stage of trial—from opening statement through rebuttal argument—the prosecution grounded its case in inadmissible evidence. ADA Ripol used opening statements to expose the jury to incriminating allegations from a non-testifying codefendant, repeatedly accused Defendant of witchcraft, unnecessarily displayed foul-smelling physical evidence that had been attached to the remains of a burnt and buried body, and told the jury that the State “demands” and “requires” the jury to convict Defendant “for the stench of death that permeated this courtroom.” The entire trial was filled with theatrics, hyperbole, and disparaging inflammatory statements, such that the extent of the misconduct cannot be fully conveyed in this opinion. In this analysis, we examine only the most egregious and dispositive misconduct.
Not only did the New Mexico Supreme Court castigate Ripol’s abhorrent conduct throughout the trial, the Court barred the State from attempting to try Lensegrav a second time on these charges. Under New Mexico law, retrial is barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the New Mexico Constitution when it satisfies a three-part test looking at the prejudicial effect of the misconduct, whether the official knew it was improper, and whether the official did so as a means to provoke a mistrial or disregards the possibility of a mistrial. The Court quickly moved point by point in saying that Double Jeopardy absolutely barred trying Lensegrav again due to the prosecutorial misconduct.
This is a prime example of a prosecutor acting in complete disregard for due process and the guarantee of a fair trial and a complete failure by defense counsel to put up any semblance of a fight against the prosecution. It is rare to see a prosecutor called out by name for misconduct, but here the New Mexico Supreme Court seemingly had no hesitation in making clear exactly who was to blame for this mockery of the justice system.
