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

During the evening of December 11, 2021, the Defendant, his girlfriend, and two others were drinking at a house in Pecos, New Mexico. An argument ensued after the Defendant received an unsatisfactory haircut, leading him to retrieve a gun from his vehicle. He shot at the front door, killing two individuals inside and threatened another, who hid and called 911. The police found the Defendant slumped over in a van, smelling of alcohol, and later he confessed to the shootings (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• District Court, August 2023: The Defendant was tried and found guilty on charges including two counts of first-degree murder, attempt to commit first-degree murder, aggravated assault, shooting at a dwelling, and negligent use of a deadly weapon (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions should be reversed due to the district court's denial of voluntary intoxication jury instructions, claimed double jeopardy violations, and contested the firearm enhancement as unlawful (para 10).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the district court's decisions were correct, asserting that the Defendant was not entitled to the requested jury instructions, and that there were no double jeopardy violations or errors in the firearm enhancement (paras 1, 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by denying the Defendant's voluntary intoxication jury instruction for first-degree murder and attempt to commit first-degree murder (para 10).
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for attempted murder and aggravated assault violated double jeopardy (para 10).
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for shooting at a dwelling and negligent use of a deadly weapon violated double jeopardy (para 10).
• Whether the firearm enhancement was unlawful due to the lack of a jury finding that the Defendant "brandished" a firearm (para 10).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, attempt to commit first-degree murder, aggravated assault, shooting at a dwelling, and negligent use of a deadly weapon (para 64).
• The Court affirmed the three-year firearm enhancement for the attempt to commit first-degree murder (para 64).
• The case was remanded to the district court to amend the sentence for negligent use of a deadly weapon to a maximum of six months (para 64).

Reasons

Per Bacon, Justice (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Vargas, and Zamora JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the Defendant was not entitled to voluntary intoxication jury instructions because the proposed instructions misstated the law by omitting necessary language, and thus, the district court's denial was not reversible error (paras 11-36).
• The Court found no double jeopardy violation in the convictions for attempted murder and aggravated assault, as the conduct was not unitary; the same conclusion was reached for the convictions of shooting at a dwelling and negligent use of a deadly weapon (paras 37-50).
• Regarding the firearm enhancement, the Court acknowledged the error in the jury instruction and special verdict form but concluded it was not fundamental error because the jury's findings on attempt to commit first-degree murder implicitly included a finding of "brandishing" a firearm (paras 51-63).