Jul. 28—The father and lawyer of a Questa teen who faces a second trial in August on a second-degree murder charge say prosecutors are forging ahead despite evidence the fatal shooting of a girl at his home last year was accidental and may have been caused by another teen.
“Now our lives are destroyed and will forever be ruined because the cops did not do their job,” the boy’s father, William Brown, said in an interview last week.
Porfirio Brown, who was 14 when he was arrested a year ago in the death of 13-year-old Amber Archuleta, stood trial in February on charges of second-degree murder, tampering with evidence and attempted assault on a peace officer. Jurors deadlocked, resulting in a mistrial.
The defense had raised questions during the trial about whether Porfirio Brown — who had been spending time at his father’s home in Questa with Archuleta, her brother and another teen girl on the day of the shooting, July 28, 2023 — was the one who had fired the fatal shot. Defense attorney Lizzy Bunker also pointed out the teen witnesses were allowed to come and go from the scene and weren’t investigated by Questa police.
Authorities have not found the weapon used in the slaying.
Bunker has filed three motions seeking to have the case against 15-year-old Porfirio Brown thrown out, pointing to failures in the investigation and inconsistencies in the teen witnesses’ statements implicating him.
There were “glaring” problems with the investigation — including an unsecured crime scene and lack of a murder weapon, Eighth Judicial District Attorney Marcus Montoya said in an interview. But he added prosecutors are “entirely confident they arrested the right person.”
Questa Police Chief Ronald Montez did not respond to requests for comment on the case.
Questa police had responded to a 911 call reporting someone had been shot in the face at William Brown’s home. They found Archuleta bleeding in the yard.
Porfirio Brown and the other two teens initially told police Archuleta was killed in a drive-by shooting, “a cover up story the three of them created,” Bunker wrote in a motion filed last week requesting dismissal of the case.
After Archuleta’s brother and the other teen girl were allowed to leave the scene, they returned with Archuleta’s father and changed their story, telling officers Brown had shot the girl inside the home while playing with his father’s gun, and then dragged her body outside, according to Bunker’s motion and reports of the incident.
Dozens of firearms were seized from William Brown’s home, but none was a match for the one that killed Archuleta. Still, prosecutors charged Porfirio Brown in her death and charged his father with allowing him to access a weapon used to cause harm.
William Brown was the first person in the state to be charged under the new Bennie Hargrove Gun Safety Act, a law aimed at holding gun owners responsible if a minor accesses their weapon and uses it to commit a crime.
Brown stood trial in June; a jury found him not guilty.
Bunker’s first motion seeking dismissal of the case against Porfirio Brown, filed in January before the boy stood trial, alleged officers from a newly reestablished Questa Police Department — including some who were not certified and had little training — performed a negligently inadequate investigation and arrested the boy based on a story concocted by his friends.
Not only were the teen witnesses allowed to leave the scene without being questioned, photographed or having their cellphones taken, Bunker wrote, the officers also failed to search a nearby dumpster for the weapon used to kill Archuleta.
State District Judge Emilio Chavez denied that motion, writing in part “the court cannot find any case that imposes a burden on law enforcement to immediately collect or preserve statements of witnesses or suspects.” But he ordered the prosecutors to contact New Mexico State Police, which had taken over the investigation from Questa police on the day of the shooting, and have the agency collect the teens’ phones.
Bunker filed another motion in May, after Porfirio Brown’s first trial ended with a hung jury.
Despite failing to reach a unanimous verdict in the case, she wrote, jurors told her and prosecutors after the trial they believed “this incident was an accident and Child did not have intent, if Child was even the shooter.”
“With this information, the State persists in trying Child for second-degree murder,” she wrote in the motion, which seeks dismissal of the case based on prosecutorial misconduct. “Clearly, any previous reasonable belief that Child had intent to commit this crime is hereafter nullified by this jury’s finding at the conclusion of the initial trial. Without new evidence to establish the necessary intent element of second-degree murder, the State lacks an honest belief in the guilt of Child.”
Trying the teen again would violate rules of prosecutorial conduct and “New Mexico’s principals of fundamental fairness,” Bunker wrote.
Montoya’s response to the motion says the jury told attorneys seven of the 12 jurors thought the boy was guilty before they began deliberating after the trial. After deliberations, four jurors still believed the boy was guilty, he wrote.
“The jury did comment that they believed the killing was accidental and some jurors commented that ‘kids were just being kids,’ ” Montoya wrote.
Chavez didn’t rule on Bunker’s second motion.
She made some of the same arguments in another motion filed last week.
Her third motion highlights inconsistent statements the teens made in court testimony and interviews since the shooting, and notes both eyewitnesses used the word “we” when discussing who moved Archuleta’s body from inside the house, where they later told officers the shooting had occurred.
“When asked to clarify what they mean by we, they change their statements and point the finger solely at [Porfirio Brown],” Bunker wrote.
According to the motion, the teen girl took the stand during William Brown’s trial, and when she was asked by a prosecutor who had shot Archuleta, she gave the name of the victim’s brother before correcting herself.
Bunker’s motion also says evidence suggests the firearm used to shoot the girl could have come from the Archuleta home.
Amber Archuleta’s father, Joshua Archuleta, testified during a preliminary hearing in Profiro Brown’s case he didn’t have any guns, but law enforcement lapel camera footage from a 2022 incident in his home captured him telling an officer there “probably” were guns in the home.
“Despite overwhelming evidence that the wrong child is being charged with murder … a now 15-year-old remains on a GPS ankle monitor, unable to attend school, unable to attend his sister’s sporting events, unable to go hunting, and unable to attend his church,” Bunker wrote.
Chavez denied the motion without a hearing. He said in his order he had found Bunker’s motion “did not provide any evidentiary support” for her allegation that “all” the jury members believed the incident was an accident.
Furthermore, he wrote, no evidence presented at the trial showed the incident was an accident or that the boy didn’t know the weapon was loaded.
“At trial the child’s primary defense was that he did not discharge the weapon,” the judge wrote. “Under the factual circumstances … continuing to prosecute this case for a second-degree murder is not misconduct.”
Shane Maier an attorney for the Archuleta family, said “police definitely did not do a good job in handling the situation.”
However, Maier said, suggestions the gun could have come from the victim’s own home aren’t supported by evidence.
The boy’s father — a longtime employee of the Taos County jail — said in an interview the state’s handling of the case has destroyed his faith in the system.
“I used to be proud to work in corrections,” he said. “Now, I don’t know how anyone wants to be associated with the justice system.”
He added, “They are afraid they got it wrong and don’t want to come out and say, ‘We got it wrong; we made a mistake.’ If they really want justice for Amber, reopen this case, put everyone as a suspect, follow the evidence and see where it leads.”
Amanda Smith is a dedicated U.S. correspondent with a passion for uncovering the stories that shape the nation. With a background in political science, she provides in-depth analysis and insightful commentary on domestic affairs, ensuring readers are well-informed about the latest developments across the United States.
