Background
In the early morning hours of January 9, 2023, Mohammed Kahla arrived for his shift at the Adam Food Market in Albuquerque. While sitting in his car outside the store with a coworker, a man named Apodaca pulled into the adjacent parking space and urinated between the vehicles, near the coworker. Kahla confronted Apodaca, who got back into his car. After several minutes of yelling, Apodaca’s car briefly made contact with Kahla’s bumper. Kahla — armed with a handgun — fired the first of eight shots at the lower portion of Apodaca’s vehicle. He then fired seven more times as Apodaca backed toward the street. The entire sequence was captured on the store’s high-quality security cameras. In the aftermath, others on the scene were observed on video collecting spent shell casings from the ground; some were handed to Kahla, who was seen depositing something into an outdoor trash can.
Kahla was initially indicted on two counts. The district attorney’s office later recused itself due to a conflict, and the New Mexico Department of Justice (NMDOJ) took over and filed a superseding indictment with additional charges. Before trial, the NMDOJ dismissed the two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after the victim’s testimony was suppressed. The jury hung on one shooting count and one tampering count but convicted Kahla on battery, shooting at or from a motor vehicle with a firearm enhancement (NMSA 1978, § 30-3-8(B) and § 31-18-16(C)), and conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence. He appealed on five grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed all three convictions.
Double jeopardy — firearm enhancement (affirmed). Kahla argued that the one-year firearm enhancement under Section 31-18-16(C) cannot be applied to a conviction for shooting at or from a motor vehicle because the use of a firearm is already a necessary element of that crime. The court disagreed, formalizing as published precedent a prior nonprecedential holding in State v. Young, A-1-CA-40649 (N.M. Ct. App. May 15, 2023). Following the New Mexico Supreme Court’s reasoning in State v. Baroz, 2017-NMSC-030, the court held that the enhancement statute’s plain language — imposing additional punishment for “noncapital felon[ies] committed with a firearm” — reflects the Legislature’s broad intent to increase punishment for any such felony, including one whose name contains the word “shooting.” The court refused to read a silent limitation into the statute, noting that if the Legislature intended to exclude any category of noncapital firearms felonies from the enhancement it would have said so clearly.
Rule 11-404(B) — victim’s prior convictions (affirmed). Kahla sought to admit the victim’s prior criminal history to support his self-defense theory and to show the victim was the first aggressor. The court upheld exclusion under Rule 11-404(B)(1) (New Mexico Rules of Evidence). Under State v. Armendariz, 2006-NMSC-036, specific instances of a victim’s prior violent conduct are admissible to show a defendant’s fear of the victim — but only if the defendant actually knew about those prior acts. Kahla had never met the victim before the incident and had no knowledge of his criminal history, so the evidence could not bear on his state of mind and was inadmissible propensity evidence.
Bullet-impact lay testimony (affirmed). The court addressed for the first time in a published New Mexico opinion whether a crime scene specialist’s identification of bullet impacts in photographs constitutes lay or expert testimony. APD Specialist Carrillo, who had specialized training in identifying firearm damage, testified from her own photos of the victim’s vehicle about what she perceived to be bullet impacts. The court held that this was proper lay testimony under Rule 11-701, adopting the approach taken by Arkansas in Doll v. State, 598 S.W.3d 47 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020), and Colorado in People v. Caldwell, 43 P.3d 663 (Colo. App. 2002): identifying the appearance of bullet holes on a motor vehicle is within the common knowledge and experience of an average person and does not require expert qualification.
Vindictive prosecution (affirmed). Kahla argued that the NMDOJ’s superseding indictment — adding charges after his motion to disqualify the district attorney’s office — was retaliatory. The court found no actual or presumptive vindictiveness; the NMDOJ had no involvement in the civil lawsuit that prompted the mayor’s and former police chief’s public statements, and the State is not required to bring its most serious charges at the outset of a prosecution.
Sufficiency of evidence on conspiracy (affirmed). Surveillance footage showed Kahla speaking with his coworker before she and others began collecting shell casings. Although Kahla testified there was no agreement, the court held the jury was free to reject his account. Under New Mexico law a conspiracy agreement need not be verbal — coordinated conduct visible on the surveillance video was sufficient circumstantial evidence of an agreement to tamper with evidence.
Key Takeaways
- The firearm enhancement in NMSA 1978, § 31-18-16, applies to a conviction for shooting at or from a motor vehicle without violating double jeopardy; this holding — previously expressed only in a nonprecedential memorandum opinion — is now published, binding authority in New Mexico.
- Under Rule 11-404(B) and Armendariz, a defendant cannot use a victim’s specific prior violent acts to establish self-defense or to show the victim was the first aggressor unless the defendant actually knew about those acts at the time of the incident.
- In the first published New Mexico opinion on the issue, identifying bullet-impact marks on a vehicle from photographs is lay testimony, not expert testimony — no firearms expertise or ballistics qualification is required for a crime scene specialist (or any witness) to offer that identification from personal observation.
Why It Matters
Kahla resolves two questions that had been left open in New Mexico criminal practice. On firearm enhancements, prosecutors now have published authority that § 31-18-16 applies across the full range of noncapital firearms felonies — defendants cannot carve out an exception for crimes whose statutory definition already incorporates a firearm. Defense counsel arguing to the contrary will face this binding precedent. On bullet-impact lay testimony, the opinion reduces the evidentiary burden on the State in shooting cases: a crime scene specialist or investigating officer who personally photographs a crime scene can testify about what the damage looks like without undergoing Daubert/Rule 11-702 qualification as an expert in ballistics or firearms.
The vindictive-prosecution analysis also provides useful guidance in cases where a new prosecutorial office assumes a case mid-stream: a superseding indictment filed by an incoming prosecutor does not, standing alone, raise a presumption of vindictiveness merely because earlier charges against the defendant triggered the reassignment.