New Mexico Supreme Court throws out 45-year murder sentence over misconduct

SANTA FE, N.M. — The New Mexico Supreme Court vacated the convictions of a Taos woman for her role in a 2019 murder, due to “outrageous prosecutorial misconduct.”

Justices unanimously concluded the misconduct led to Desiree Lensegrav failing to receive a fair trial. They also ruled state constitutional protections against double jeopardy prohibit a new trial because of the misconduct.

“That included referring to the defendant as a witch,” a news release stated.

In 2022, a judge sentenced Lensegrav to 45 years in prison for first-degree murder, kidnapping and other charges for the death of Joseph Morgas. Her husband, Aram Montoya, received a life sentence without parole after pleading guilty to killing Morgas.

While under arrest for stabbing Lensegrav, Montoya admitted to murdering Morgas. Lensegrav explained to police what happened. She said she wanted Montoya to hurt Morgas after Morgas threatened her.

During Lensegrav’s trial, Assistant District Attorney Cosme Ripol allegedly used “inflammatory and inadmissible evidence.” That included “foul-smelling physical evidence” from the victim’s remains, which led to court being adjourned. Ripol referred to that evidence and moment during closing statements.

“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,” the court wrote.

The justices stated they found it “profoundly troubling” her attorneys didn’t object to most instances of the misconduct. They stated the issue first came up on appeal. They added that didn’t give the court a chance to “rule on or correct what occurred.”

In an opinion for the court, Justice Michael E. Vigil wrote the following:

“In this case of severe and pervasive prosecutorial misconduct, exacerbated by a lackluster defense, we hold that an Assistant District Attorney who uses opening statements to expose the jury to incriminating allegations from a non-testifying codefendant, repeatedly accuses a defendant of witchcraft, and relies on inflammatory and inadmissible evidence throughout the case, has knowingly committed misconduct so unfairly prejudicial and with such willful disregard for reversal on appeal that retrial is barred under Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution.”