New Mexico Supreme Court overturns murder-related convictions in 2018 Doña Ana County shooting
Cristal Cardenas to receive new trial after justices find she was denied a fair proceeding
Organ Mountain News report
SANTA FE - The New Mexico Supreme Court has overturned the convictions of Cristal Cardenas, who was found guilty in connection with a 2018 double homicide, ruling she did not receive a fair trial due to improper questioning by prosecutors.
Background of the case
In March 2018, Mario Cabral and his girlfriend, Vanessa Mora, were found shot to death in their home in Garfield. Authorities said Cardenas, Cabral’s ex-girlfriend, had been involved in a custody dispute with him and conspired to have him killed.
Prosecutors alleged Cardenas initially tried to hire Edward Alonso to carry out the killing for $10,000. Alonso reportedly took a partial payment but did not follow through and later cooperated with investigators. When the murder-for-hire attempt failed, prosecutors said Cardenas and her boyfriend, Luis Flores, surveilled the home before Flores entered and fatally shot both victims.
Flores later pleaded guilty to conspiracy resulting in a death. Alonso pleaded guilty to conspiracy and criminal solicitation. Charges against a third co-defendant, Anna Rodriguez, were dismissed in 2020.
Trial and convictions
Cardenas was convicted in 2022 of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and criminal solicitation to commit first-degree murder in connection with Cabral’s death. She was sentenced to life in prison plus 24 years. A jury acquitted her of a separate first-degree murder charge in the death of Mora.
Appeal and Supreme Court decision
Cardenas appealed her convictions, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to question her about her infant daughter testing positive for methamphetamine. Her attorneys said the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.
In a 3-2 decision, the state Supreme Court agreed. Justice Michael E. Vigil, writing for the majority, said the questioning improperly influenced the jury’s assessment of Cardenas’ credibility.
“In this case, the State was the source of the error; the evidence of Defendant’s guilt, although substantial, was circumstantial; the error affected an important issue in the case — credibility,” Vigil wrote. “We conclude there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the jury’s verdict.”
The Court rejected the state’s argument that Cardenas’ testimony had “opened the door” to the questioning by portraying herself as a peaceful and law-abiding mother.
Dissenting opinion
Chief Justice David K. Thomson dissented, writing that the prosecution’s questions were proper rebuttal and did not amount to reversible error.
“Ultimately, the State’s actions simply do not satisfy the requirements of reversible error; 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,” Thomson wrote.
What’s next
Cardenas’ case will return to the Third Judicial District Court, where prosecutors will decide whether to proceed toward a new trial on the charges for which Cardenas was previously convicted.