This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was involved in a confrontation outside a trailer where he was partying. He shot and killed one individual and injured another, claiming he acted in defense of a woman who was being assaulted. The Defendant argued he believed the victims were armed and posed an imminent threat (paras 1, 5-6).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: The Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and tampering with evidence. His sentence was enhanced based on aggravating circumstances (para 1).
- Court of Appeals: Affirmed the Defendant's convictions and sentencing (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on defense of another and attempted voluntary manslaughter. He also contended that the sentence enhancement based on judicial findings of aggravating circumstances was unconstitutional (para 1).
- State: Maintained that the evidence did not support the requested jury instructions and that the sentence enhancement was constitutional under New Mexico law (paras 1-2, 9).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant entitled to a jury instruction on defense of another?
- Should the jury have been instructed on attempted voluntary manslaughter?
- Was the sentence enhancement based on judicial findings of aggravating circumstances constitutional?
Disposition
- The conviction for second-degree murder was affirmed (para 29).
- The conviction for attempted second-degree murder was reversed, and a new trial was ordered on that count (para 29).
- The sentence enhancement was upheld as constitutional (para 29).
Reasons
Majority Opinion (Per Chávez J., with Bosson C.J. and Serna J. concurring):
Defense of Another:
The evidence did not support the Defendant's claim that he acted to protect the woman from imminent death or great bodily harm. The trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on this defense was upheld (paras 3-7).
Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter:
The Court held, as a matter of first impression, that attempted voluntary manslaughter is a crime in New Mexico under limited circumstances. The Defendant presented sufficient evidence of provocation to warrant an instruction on this lesser-included offense. The trial court's failure to provide this instruction was reversible error, necessitating a new trial on the attempted second-degree murder charge (paras 8-25).
Sentence Enhancement:
The Court reaffirmed its prior decision in State v. Lopez, holding that judicial findings of aggravating circumstances for sentence enhancement are constitutional under New Mexico law. The enhancement of the Defendant's sentence was therefore upheld (paras 26-28).
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion (Per Minzner J., with Maes J. concurring):
Minzner J. agreed with affirming the second-degree murder conviction and the sentence enhancement but dissented from the reversal of the attempted second-degree murder conviction. She argued that the evidence did not support an instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter, as there was insufficient proof of extreme emotion or loss of self-control required for provocation. She also expressed concerns about the preservation of the issue for appeal and the adequacy of the Defendant's tendered jury instructions (paras 31-38).