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, along with the armed robbery of one of the victims. These actions led to his conviction on two counts of first-degree felony murder (para 1).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury instructions were flawed, specifically challenging the district court's response to a jury question, the lack of a second-degree murder instruction as a lesser-included offense, and the confusing nature of the felony murder and aiding-and-abetting instructions (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court's instructions were accurate and that the Defendant's arguments lacked merit, as previously determined in a related case (paras 5-6, 11-12).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in its response to the jury's question about convicting for both felony murder and second-degree murder (para 5).
- Whether the failure to instruct the jury on second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense of felony murder constituted fundamental error (para 7).
- Whether the jury instructions for felony murder and aiding-and-abetting were fundamentally flawed due to their structure and content (para 10).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision on all issues raised in the appeal (para 15).
Reasons
Per Zamora, Justice (Thomson, Vigil, Bacon, and Vargas JJ. concurring):
Justice Zamora found that the district court's response to the jury's question was a correct statement of the law and did not result in reversible error, as it was consistent with the jury instruction provided (para 5). The Defendant's unpreserved challenges to the jury instructions were reviewed for fundamental error, and the court found no error in the instructions given, including the lack of a second-degree murder instruction as a lesser-included offense (paras 6-9). The court also determined that the use of "and/or" in the instructions did not result in fundamental error, as the instructions were not misleading or confusing to the jury (paras 10-14).