Convictions upheld as court rejects claims of withheld evidence and insufficient proof, but orders May hearing on possible outside jury communication

Damien Willis, Organ Mountain News

LAS CRUCES - A judge has denied multiple post-trial motions filed by Tomas Rivas, upholding his convictions in the Young Park mass shooting while ordering a separate evidentiary hearing into alleged juror misconduct during the trial.

The March 2025 mass shooting at Young Park left Dominick Estrada, 19, Andrew “AJ” Madrid, 16, and Jason Gomez, 17, dead. Fourteen others were injured at the park that night — making the incident the largest mass shooting in recent New Mexico history by total number of victims.

Convictions upheld after sweeping challenge

Rivas, who was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder under a depraved mind theory, asked the court to dismiss the charges, grant a new trial or set aside the verdict entirely. His motions challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence and the state’s handling of key disclosures before trial.

Judge Douglas Driggers rejected those requests in a series of rulings filed Friday, April 10, finding that the jury’s verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and that the defense failed to meet the legal standards required to overturn the conviction.

Accomplice liability drives court’s decision

A central argument from the defense was that prosecutors failed to prove Rivas fired the fatal shots that killed the victims. The court found that argument did not undermine the convictions under New Mexico law.

Instead, the ruling emphasized accomplice liability, which allows a defendant to be found guilty if they intended the crime and helped, encouraged or caused it to occur. That standard does not require proof that a specific defendant fired the fatal bullet.

The court pointed to trial evidence showing that Rivas and others arrived together at Young Park, wore ski masks and coordinated their actions before opening fire. Testimony indicated that Rivas discharged a 17-round magazine into a crowded park with more than 100 people present, conduct the court found sufficient to sustain the convictions.

Court rejects claims of withheld evidence

Rivas also argued that he was denied a fair trial because prosecutors failed to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence in a timely manner. The claim centered on a February 2026 supplemental police report summarizing follow-up interviews with witnesses.

The defense argued that the report supported an alternate shooter theory and pointed to a possible different firing location. Attorneys contended that the late disclosure prevented them from fully investigating and presenting that theory to the jury.

The court acknowledged that the report was disclosed approximately one week before trial, but found that the delay did not rise to a constitutional violation.

Report found not material to outcome

In evaluating the claim, the court examined the content of the supplemental report itself and found it did not contain evidence that would have changed the outcome of the trial.

The report summarized interviews with four bystanders, most of whom did not see a shooter. Only one witness described seeing a single shooter near the parking lot, and the report did not reference shell casings near the park bathrooms — a key detail emphasized by the defense.

The court also found that evidence related to shell casings and possible alternate firing locations had already been disclosed months before trial through forensic reports and crime scene diagrams. Defense attorneys used that information to argue an alternate shooter theory during the trial, but the jury ultimately rejected it.

Because of that, the court concluded that the report was not material or exculpatory and that there was no reasonable probability it would have changed the outcome of the case.

State acknowledges delay but court finds no prejudice

In its response, prosecutors acknowledged that the supplemental report should have been disclosed earlier and accepted responsibility for the delay.

However, the state argued that the defense had access to the underlying evidence well before trial and had already incorporated the alternate shooter theory into its strategy. The court agreed, finding that the delay did not prejudice the defense in a way that would justify a new trial or dismissal.

Jury misconduct allegation moves forward

While denying the motions to overturn the conviction, the court granted a separate request for an evidentiary hearing into alleged improper communication involving the jury foreperson.

The allegation involves claims that the foreperson exchanged text messages with a non-juror during the trial. Prosecutors described the claim as unverified and based on third-hand information but did not oppose holding a hearing to determine the facts.

Judge Driggers ordered a limited evidentiary hearing to allow testimony under oath. The hearing is scheduled for May 7, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6 of the Third Judicial District Court in Las Cruces.

What comes next

The court’s rulings leave the jury’s verdict intact, meaning Rivas’ convictions remain in place for now. However, the upcoming evidentiary hearing introduces a new phase of the case focused on the integrity of the jury process.

If the hearing uncovers evidence that improper communication occurred and affected the verdict, the court could revisit the case. If not, the case is expected to move into the appellate phase, where Rivas can continue to challenge his convictions in higher courts.

For now, the judge has drawn a clear line. The arguments for a new trial have been rejected, but questions about possible outside influence on the jury will be examined in the weeks ahead.

Damien Willis is founder and editor of Organ Mountain News. If you have a personal story to share or a lead we should follow up on, reach out at OrganMountainNews@gmail.com or connect with him on X at @damienwillis.