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 shooting incident on a freeway, where he fired at a white truck driven by the Victim, resulting in the Victim's death. The Defendant claimed he acted in self-defense, believing the Victim was armed and posed an immediate threat. The Defendant was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and was feeling paranoid due to prior events that night (paras 14-18).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder following a jury trial (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by not striking two jurors for cause due to alleged bias and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction as the State failed to disprove self-defense (paras 2-3).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court did not abuse its discretion in jury selection and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, including the lack of evidence of self-defense.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion by failing to strike two jurors for cause?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction of second-degree murder, specifically regarding the disproval of self-defense?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence for second-degree murder (para 20).
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Attrep and Wray JJ. concurring):
The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision not to strike Jurors 13 and 15 for cause. Juror 13's statements about bias against expert witnesses were not deemed to show actual bias, as his other statements indicated an ability to be impartial. Similarly, Juror 15's statements about objectivity and the need for more information were sufficient to demonstrate impartiality (paras 3-11).
Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court held that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. The jury instructions required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self-defense. The evidence presented, including the lack of weapons or bullet marks on the Victim's truck and the Defendant's own statements, allowed a rational jury to conclude that the Defendant did not act in self-defense (paras 12-19).