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, the Victim, and two other men were driving around Gallup, New Mexico, smoking marijuana and drinking beer on the evening of the incident. The shooting occurred at an apartment complex. The Defendant approached the Victim, pointed a gun at him, and fired at close range, striking the Victim in the cheek. The Defendant claimed the Victim had a history of carrying a knife, blackouts, and violence when intoxicated. The Defendant testified that the Victim grabbed his shirt and struck him before the shooting.
Procedural History
- District Court of McKinley County: The Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in refusing to provide a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter, asserting that there was sufficient evidence of provocation to support the instruction. The Defendant relied on his testimony and expert evidence from Dr. Zumwalt to argue that the Victim may have acted aggressively.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the evidence did not support a finding of sufficient provocation to warrant a voluntary manslaughter instruction. The State argued that the Victim’s actions, even if aggressive, did not meet the legal standard for sufficient provocation.
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on the evidence of provocation?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence.
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Fry C.J. and Vigil J. concurring):
The Court held that a Defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense, such as voluntary manslaughter, if there is evidence to support it. Sufficient provocation must involve actions or circumstances that would cause an ordinary person to lose self-control. The Court found that the Victim’s alleged actions—grabbing the Defendant’s shirt and striking him—did not constitute sufficient provocation under the legal standard. The Court also noted that the expert testimony from Dr. Zumwalt did not definitively establish whether the Victim acted defensively or aggressively. Therefore, the district court did not err in refusing the voluntary manslaughter instruction.