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 the kidnapping and killing of two teenage victims, as well as the armed robbery of one of the victims. The victims were lured under the pretense of a firearm purchase, beaten, and later killed. The Defendant and co-defendants attempted to cover up the crime by cleaning the vehicle and disposing of the bodies. (paras 2-5)
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony murder, among other charges, and sentenced to life imprisonment. (para 2)
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that the jury instructions were flawed, including the failure to instruct on second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense, and that his counsel was ineffective. (para 1)
- Appellee: The State contended that the jury instructions were correct and that the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were unfounded. (paras 9-10, 15-16)
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in not instructing the jury on second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense of felony murder.
- Whether the district court’s response to the jury’s question about convicting on both felony murder and second-degree murder was a misstatement of the law.
- Whether the jury instructions for felony murder and aiding and abetting were confusing and misleading.
- Whether the inclusion of armed robbery as a predicate felony for felony murder was erroneous.
- Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. (paras 1, 8, 12, 20)
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision on all issues raised in the appeal. (para 23)
Reasons
Per Zamora J. (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Bacon, and Vargas JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the district court's response to the jury's question was an accurate statement of the law and did not result in reversible error. The jury instructions were deemed correct, and the use of "and/or" in the instructions did not cause juror confusion. The Court also held that the Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not substantiated, as the record did not support a prima facie case. The Court emphasized that the jury instructions, when read as a whole, fairly and accurately stated the applicable law. (paras 9-19, 21-22)