AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 fatal shooting of the Victim, whom the Defendant believed had engaged in sexual intercourse with Gurule, the Defendant's on-again-off-again partner. After an initial confrontation at the home the Defendant owned and where Gurule was staying, the Defendant retrieved an AK-47 from his friend's trailer, returned to the house, and fatally shot the Victim following a verbal exchange. The Defendant claimed self-defense, arguing that the Victim had charged at him, prompting the shooting (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by not providing a self-defense jury instruction and by giving an erroneous jury instruction regarding forcible eviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in failing to provide a self-defense jury instruction.
• Whether the trial court erred by giving an erroneous jury instruction regarding forcible eviction.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the findings of the district court, rejecting the Defendant's appeals regarding both the self-defense jury instruction and the forcible eviction jury instruction (para 23).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Thomson writing and Justices Vigil, Bacon, Vargas, and Zamora concurring, held that:
  Self-Defense Jury Instruction: The Defendant was considered the first aggressor, having provoked the encounter by returning to the scene armed with an AK-47 and initiating another confrontation. The Court found no immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to the Defendant by the Victim at the time of the shooting, thus not warranting a self-defense instruction (paras 6-15).
  Forcible Eviction Jury Instruction: The Court determined that the trial court's use of a non-uniform jury instruction regarding forcible eviction did not constitute reversible error. The instruction, while irrelevant to the case's facts, was not fundamentally erroneous as it did not mislead or confuse the jury regarding the law or the facts of the case (paras 17-22).