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, was charged with being in possession of a firearm. He claimed that he purchased the firearm to protect himself from threats and violence by his estranged wife, her family members, and others. The Defendant alleged several incidents of threats and attacks, including gunfire and physical altercations, leading up to his possession of the firearm. He argued that his possession of the firearm was justified by duress (paras 2-12).
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. His sentence was enhanced under the habitual offender statute (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of duress, that using the same prior felony to prove both the firearm possession charge and habitual offender status violated double jeopardy, and that the jury pool was improperly constituted (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the duress defense was not applicable to the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm under the circumstances and that the jury pool was properly constituted. The State conceded that the sentence enhancement under the habitual offender statute was improper (paras 1, 14, 24).
Legal Issues
- Was the trial court correct in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of duress?
- Did the use of the same prior felony to prove both the firearm possession charge and habitual offender status violate double jeopardy?
- Was the jury pool improperly constituted?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court for resolution of the duress instruction issue and potential revision of the duress defense.
- The Court indicated that, but for the certification, it would have reversed the sentence enhancement for violating double jeopardy and affirmed the denial of the motion to discharge the jury (paras 28-29).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Bivins and Chavez JJ. concurring):
Duress Instruction: The Court found that the Defendant presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question on the defense of duress, including evidence of threats and immediate harm. However, the Court noted that the current jury instruction on duress might need revision to align with the stricter interpretation of "immediacy" in other jurisdictions for crimes like felon in possession of a firearm. The Court certified this issue to the New Mexico Supreme Court for clarification and potential revision (paras 17-27).
Double Jeopardy: The Court agreed with the Defendant and the State's concession that using the same prior felony for both the firearm possession charge and habitual offender enhancement violated double jeopardy. It indicated it would have reversed the sentence enhancement and remanded for resentencing (para 14).
Jury Pool: The Court held that the jury pool was properly constituted under binding precedent from the New Mexico Supreme Court, which determined the effective date of the expanded jury pool. The Court declined to reconsider this precedent (paras 15-16).
Certification: The Court certified the case to the New Mexico Supreme Court to address the sufficiency of the evidence for a duress instruction and whether the duress defense should be revised for felon-in-possession cases (paras 27-29).