When a criminal case goes to trial in New Mexico, the defense strategy has to make sense. You have to pick a lane. A recent opinion from the New Mexico Court of Appeals shows exactly what happens when a defendant tries to argue two completely contradictory stories at once.
The case is State v. Radasa-Gleason. The facts are straightforward, but the legal arguments touch on issues that affect everything from violent felonies to routine DWI stops.
The Storage Facility Robbery
In June 2022, a woman walked into an Alamogordo self-storage facility. She wore a long dark wig, a black hat, black pants, and heavy winter clothes despite the summer heat. She pulled out what looked like a real handgun. The clerk complied with her demands.
The woman walked out with the clerk's wallet, a cell phone, a real .38 caliber handgun, and about a thousand dollars in cash. Security cameras caught the suspect getting into a reddish-orange Mercedes-Benz SUV with a black top and a sunroof.
The Alamogordo Police Department ran that exact vehicle description through their internal records. They found a prior report matching that car linked to a specific address. Police drove to that address and found the reddish-orange Mercedes sitting right in the driveway. It belonged to Crystal Radasa-Gleason.
The Disappearing Alibi
Officers knocked on the door. Radasa-Gleason told them she had not left the house all day. She claimed she was dealing with female issues and had been wearing the exact same leopard-print shorts and tank top since she woke up.
The police kept digging. They found a neighbor across the street with a Ring video doorbell. The camera captured the driveway perfectly. The video clips from the afternoon of the robbery showed Radasa-Gleason walking down her driveway. She was wearing all black pants, a black jacket, a black hat, and black shoes. She then left the residence.
This completely destroyed her initial alibi.
The Police Station Confession
Police brought her into the station the next day for a recorded interview. She tried to deny her involvement again. That did not last long. She soon changed her story and admitted she committed the robbery.
She told the police a detailed story about why she did it. She claimed one of her roommates dealt illegal drugs and owed money to a cartel in Mexico. She said these dealers came to her house multiple times and threatened to kill her and her family. When the dealers were scheduled to return, her codefendant told her they needed to rob the storage facility for quick cash to pay off the debt.
She said she told her codefendant she didn't want to do it. He told her to just do it. She agreed.
After the robbery, she claimed her codefendant took everything from her. She said he took the disguise, the BB gun used in the robbery, the stolen .38 caliber handgun, and the stolen wallet. Then he dropped her off on the side of the road.
The Problem with Inconsistent Defenses
Radasa-Gleason faced charges for armed robbery under NMSA 30-16-2, conspiracy to commit armed robbery under NMSA 30-28-2, and tampering with evidence under NMSA 30-22-5.
At trial, her defense lawyer took a hard line. The defense told the jury she was completely innocent. They argued the state could not prove she was the person in the video. They told the jury the police pressured her into a false confession and asked them to throw the recorded interview out entirely.
The jury did not buy it. They convicted her on all counts.
She appealed the conviction. She argued the trial judge made a fundamental error by not instructing the jury on the defense of duress. Duress is a legal defense where you admit you committed a crime, but you argue you only did it because someone threatened you with immediate and great bodily harm.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals rejected her argument completely. The court explained a strict rule in New Mexico law. You cannot argue two factually impossible things at the same time. You cannot tell a jury you were completely uninvolved in a crime and simultaneously claim you were forced to commit it.
Since she maintained a defense of noninvolvement at trial, the law flatly prohibits her from also claiming duress.
The DWI Connection
The Court of Appeals actually looked at a well-known DWI case to explain how this rule works in practice. In a 2010 case called State v. Tom, a driver faced DWI charges. The driver admitted to drinking alcohol. The driver admitted to being behind the wheel of the vehicle.
Since the driver admitted those basic physical facts, the court allowed the defense of duress. The driver could legally argue they only drove drunk to escape an immediate physical threat. Admitting some elements of the crime gives you the legal room to explain why you did it.
Radasa-Gleason did the exact opposite. She denied being there at all. That strategic choice locked her out of a duress defense entirely.
Hiding Evidence by Proxy
The appeal also challenged her conviction for tampering with evidence. Tampering is a specific intent crime in New Mexico. The state has to prove you intended to prevent your own apprehension or prosecution.
Radasa-Gleason argued the state had zero proof she personally tampered with anything. She pointed out that she just handed the disguise and the stolen items to her codefendant.
The court found this argument entirely unconvincing. Handing physical evidence to someone else so they can get rid of it is an overt act of tampering. New Mexico law uses accessory liability. If you help, encourage, or cause someone else to commit a crime, you are just as guilty as if you did the physical act yourself.
The jury was allowed to look at her recorded statement. She admitted giving all the incriminating items to the codefendant right after the robbery. The court ruled that any reasonable jury could look at that action and infer she intended to hide the evidence and avoid getting caught.
Your Words Shape the Case
The appellate court affirmed all the convictions. Radasa-Gleason's recorded interview provided the state with the exact narrative they needed to prove both the robbery and the tampering charges.
Her case shows how statements made during an investigation restrict your options in the courtroom. Trying to take back a recorded confession by denying everything at trial rarely works. And once you commit to saying you weren't there, you lose the ability to tell the jury why you actually did it.
Patrick J. Martinez
Attorney at Law
25+ years of trial experience in Albuquerque, NM