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 outside a party in Albuquerque on September 29, 2019, where the Victim was killed by gunfire. The incident was captured on surveillance video, and eyewitnesses testified that the Defendant shot at his enemy, but the bullets missed and killed the Victim instead. The Defendant was charged with first-degree depraved mind murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (paras 3, 6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Brett R. Loveless, District Judge: The Defendant was convicted of first-degree depraved mind murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a change of venue (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the change of venue motion (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant's conviction for first-degree depraved mind murder supported by sufficient evidence?
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for a change of venue?
Disposition
- The court affirmed the Defendant's judgment and sentence, finding sufficient evidence for the first-degree murder conviction and no abuse of discretion in denying the change of venue (para 2).
Reasons
Per Thomson, Chief Justice (Vigil, Bacon, Vargas, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The court found that the evidence, including surveillance video, eyewitness testimony, and expert analysis, was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed first-degree depraved mind murder. The jury's credibility determinations regarding witnesses were respected, and the evidence supported the necessary mens rea for the conviction (paras 6-28). Regarding the change of venue, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion as voir dire was conducted, and no jurors with potential bias from media coverage were empaneled (paras 29-38).