Doña Ana County murder conviction overturned by high court

LAS CRUCES — A divided New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the 2022 conviction of a Las Cruces woman on charges she arranged the murder of her former boyfriend.

Mario Cabral and Vanessa Mora were shot to death at Mora’s residence in Garfield on March 25, 2018, while Mora’s teenage daughter was sleeping in another room. Police said Cristal Cardenas and Luis Flores, her new boyfriend, killed the couple together after Cardenas had attempted to hire a hit man to murder Cabral.

Flores, 36, later pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with five years and nearly seven months to serve.

A jury convicted Cardenas, 37, of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and one count of criminal solicitation, while acquitting her of a second murder count. She was sentenced to life in prison on the murder count, plus 24 years for the other charges.

In a 4-1 opinion filed Thursday, the state’s high court ruled that Cardenas did not receive a fair trial due to questioning about Cardenas’ 6-month-old daughter with Flores and the daughter having tested positive for methamphetamine. Cardenas appealed the conviction, arguing the line of questioning was inadmissible and prejudiced the jury.

Justice Michael Vigil wrote in the majority’s opinion, “the evidence of Defendant’s guilt, although substantial, was circumstantial; the error affected an important issue in the case — credibility.”

Prosecutors disavowed the importance of that evidence, saying the line of questioning was to rebut evidence that Cardenas had been a responsible and law-abiding parent. The court found that the court had erred in allowing the questioning as inadmissible character evidence.

“We conclude there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the jury’s verdict,” the opinion stated.

As a result, Cardenas is entitled to a new trial. Her case was returned to the 3rd Judicial District Court.

Chief Justice David Thomson dissented, backing the trial court where state District Judge Conrad Perea presided, writing, “The positive methamphetamine test was relevant and appropriate rebuttal evidence given Defendant’s portrayal of her character as a parent.”

Thomson continued later in his opinion that “the State did not emphasize the information, it was not central or necessary to the State’s case while the other evidence of guilt was overwhelming.”