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, a convicted felon, purchased a firearm, claiming he did so under duress due to a series of threats and violent incidents involving his estranged wife, her family, and others. These incidents included his wife smashing his car windshield, firing a gun near his parents' home, and his car being shot at during a visit to his wife. The Defendant argued that these events caused him to fear immediate bodily harm, leading him to arm himself for protection (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court: The Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the defense of duress and denied the Defendant's motion to discharge the jury (headnotes, para 3).
- Court of Appeals: Certified the case to the Supreme Court of New Mexico to clarify the law on duress as a defense to the crime of felon in possession of a firearm.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of duress, as he presented sufficient evidence of immediate threats to justify his possession of a firearm. He also contended that the jury venire composition violated statutory requirements and that using the same prior felony to prove both the firearm possession charge and habitual offender status violated double jeopardy (paras 3, 5, 21-22).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of duress, as the harm feared was not immediate and reasonable alternatives to arming himself were available. The State conceded that the use of the same prior felony for both the firearm charge and habitual offender enhancement was improper (paras 5, 22).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of duress?
- Did the jury venire composition violate statutory requirements?
- Did the use of the same prior felony for both the firearm possession charge and habitual offender enhancement violate double jeopardy?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on duress (para 20).
- The Court found no violation in the jury venire composition (para 21).
- The Court vacated the habitual offender enhancement and remanded for resentencing (para 22).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Ransom C.J. and Montgomery J. concurring):
Duress Defense: The Court held that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of duress. While the defense of duress is available to felons accused of firearm possession, it requires evidence of immediate and great bodily harm and that a reasonable person in the Defendant's position would have acted similarly. The Court found that the harm feared by the Defendant was not immediate, and reasonable alternatives, such as contacting the police or avoiding his wife, were available. The Defendant's possession of the firearm for a week before the final incident further undermined his claim of immediacy (paras 4-20).
Jury Venire Composition: The Court determined that the jury venire complied with statutory requirements, as the trial occurred before the expanded jury pool mandated by law took effect (para 21).
Double Jeopardy: The Court agreed with the Defendant and the State that using the same prior felony for both the firearm possession charge and habitual offender enhancement violated double jeopardy principles. The Court vacated the enhancement and remanded for resentencing (para 22).