Th is de c isi on wa s no t se le c te d fo r pu bli c atio n in the Ne w Me xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Ple a se se e Rul e 12-405 NMRA for

restric tions on the citation of non-prece dential di spositions

. Please a lso note that this electronic de cision may contain computer- g ener ated err ors or other de viations from the off icial paper version filed by

the Supreme Court. 1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 F ili ng D at e: N ove m be r 17, 201 6 3 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 4 Plaintiff-P etitioner, 5 v

. N O. S- 1- SC -3 5259 6 AN THON Y JOHN MORRIS, 7 D ef

en da nt- Re spon de nt.
8 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 9 St an le y W hi ta k er , D ist ri ctJu dg e
10 He ctor Balder as, A ttorney Ge neral 11 John Kloss, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 12 San ta Fe, NM 13 for Pe tition er
14 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 15 Ka thleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate D efender 16 San ta Fe, NM 17 fo r Re spon de nt2

1 DEC ISION 2 MA ES, Justice. 3 { 1} A nth ony

Joh n M or

ri s ( D ef en da nt) w as c onvi ct ed

of the w ill fu l and d el ibe rate 4 first-degree m

urder of Mary

DuPr is (DuPr is) on Dece m ber 26, 1991

. De fendant wa s 5 se nte nc ed

to a te rm of li fe im pr iso nm en t. I n hi s di re ct

appe al to thi s C ourt, D ef

en da nt 6 challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. 7 { 2} This Court exercises appellate jurisdiction wher e li fe im prisonm ent has been 8 im po se d. See N

. M. Co nst . a rt . V I, § 2; se e als o Rule 1 2-102(A)(1) NMR A ( 2000 ). 9 W e af fi rm D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct iona nd s en tenc e. Be ca use D ef en da nt r ai se s no 10 que sti ons of

law that N ewMe xic o pr ec ed en t do es n ot a lr ea dy suf fi ci en tly a ddr es s, 11 we is su e th is no np rece de nt ia l d eci si on pu rs ua nt to Ru le 12 -4 05 (B)( 1) NMRA. 12 BACKGRO UND 13 { 3} In Decem

be r of 1 9 9 1, Du Pri s l iv edin Acom it a, New Mex ic o wi th he r two 14 ch ildre n T re vor

a nd An ge lin a. Sh e al so live d wi th h er m oth er , Marl en e Be ar

S top s 15 (Mar lene), sister Rochelle Lovato (Rochelle), and older brother W ilfred Antonio, Jr. 16 (W ilf re d)

. D uP ri s sp en t C hr istm as E ve and C hr istm as D ay of 199 1 w ithhe r fam ily 17 in Acom it a, cel eb rat in g t he ho li da y . 18 { 4} The next m orni n g , De ce m b er2 6 , 1 9 9 1 , M ar l en e d ro v e t o Al b u qu er qu e w i t h her3

1 daught er s, D uP ri s and R oc he lle ; he r gr an dc hil dr en , Tr ev or a nd A nge lin a; a nd 2 Ro ch el le ’ s f

ri en d C laudi ne . T he y

sto ppe d to dr op Mar le ne at th e W es te rnBank 3 build ing in A lbuq uerque, where she w orked at the U. S. Public He alth Service. A fter 4 Ma rl en e le f

t , D u P r i s d r o v e t h e g r o up a r o u n dt o w n , s t o p p i n g a tap l a s m ad o n a t ion 5 ce nte r to m ak e a donatio n, the Co ro na do m al l, an d aloc al park to play w ithhe r kid s. 6 Ove r th e co ur se of t he da y DuPr is pu rch as edwin e co ol ers an d b eer. 7 { 5} A t aro und 4:3 0 p.m

. , D uP ri s r et ur ne d to pic k he r m oth er

up f ro m w ork. 8 Marl en e sugg es te d tha t she dr ive , as D uP ri s ha d be endr ink ing

. D uP ri s a gr ee d and 9 ex i t e dt h e v e h i c l e , b u tt h e n d e c i d e dt o s t a y i n A l b u qu e r qu e f

o r t h e n i g h tt e l l i n g the 10 gr oup tha t sh e w oul d pr oba bly stay a t he r au nt ’s hou se . S he a ske d he r m oth er a nd 11 si st er t o t ak e car e o f he r ch il dr en an d t he n wal ke d a way fro m he r fam il y . 12 { 6} La ter that day , D onja K ay e N ations, the m anager o f a m otel at 1020 Central 13 A ve nue S W

in A lbu que rque , saw a w om an m at ch ing a des cr ipt ionof D uP ri s w al kin g 14 down Central. A s the wom an wa lked, a red truck pulled up next to her and stop ped 15 j ust in front of her. Am an j um ped out o f the truck, picked up the wom an, forced her 16 into the passenger seat o f the truck, and drove away . At tria l, Ms. Nations testified 17 that the wom an had a “ terrif ied lookon her fac e” and it “ didn ’ t seem like she knew 18 him at all. ” A fter discussing what she had seen with her husband, Nations decided4

1 not to ca ll the pol ic e, a nd i nst ea d w ai te d th re e m onths t o r ep ort w ha t sh e ha d se ento 2 the police. A t trial, Na tions testified that she would “ p ro bably never for get [the] 3 face ” of the w om an she had seen abducted, and Nations wa s “ pretty sure” that w om an 4 w as D uP ri s. N at ion s a lso te sti fi ed that sh e be lie ve d th e tr

uc k wa s a D odge but

c oul d 5 no t b e su re. 6 { 7} That sam e day , V ictor Zabel, Sr. wa s working at the Double E agle II Airport 7 on Paseo del Volcan on the we st side of Albuq uerque with his son, Victor Z abel, Jr. 8 T ha t e ve nin g Z ab el , Jr

. le ft the ai rp ort bef or e his f athe r. O n hi s w ay

hom e, w hil e on 9 Pa se o de l V olc anne ar I -4 0, he pa sse d ar ed

tr uc k th at w as sto ppe d onthe e as t si de 10 of th e ro adclo se r to I-4 0, b ut di d n ot see an yth in g e ls e o ut of t he ord in ary. 11 { 8} Za

bel, S r. left the air

port about fifteen m inutes a ft er h i s son. When he was 12 about on e m ile north of I-40, he saw so m ething ly ing in the road and swer ved in an 13 unsu cc es sf

ul atte m pt t o a voi d hi tti ng i t. A t f ir st h e th ought i t w as ati re , a nd 14 co nti nue d dr ivi ng, but the n lo oke d ba ck

to se e w ha t he ha d hi t, a nd re al iz ed th at it 15 wa s a person. U nsure of how to proceed, he drove to a nearby gas station and called 16 the pol ic e at ap pr oxi m at el y 6:5 8 p. m . H e the n r et ur ne d to the body

to pr ev en t any one 17 else fr om

hitting it, c hecked the bodyfor a pulse, but found non e. Officer s arrived 18 on sce ne at app ro xi m at el y 7: 18 p.m .5

1 { 9} Of

ficer s respondin g to the scene originallyb e l ieved DuPr is’ death to have been 2 caused by

a m otor vehicle accident. The f ollowin g d ay, D r. Kurt N olte, Chief 3 Me di c a l I n v e s t i g a t o r , s up e rv i s e d t h e au t o p s y p e r f o rm e d o n t h e b o d y w hic h he 4 posi tiv el y

ide nti fi ed

a s D uP ri s. D ur ing the ini tia l e xa m ina tio n, D r. N olt e not ed the 5 presence of a guns hot w ound on the right tem ple, w hich had a downwar d traj ectory 6 m o v i n g f

r o m r i g h t t o l e f

t . D r . N o l t e t e s t i f

i e d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o ev ide nc e of 7 gunp ow de r re sid

ue a ro und the w ound , but tha t the re w er e punc ta te ab ra sio ns aro und 8 the wound, w hich sugg ested that the guns hot traveled th rough an interm ediate target 9 fr om a n in de te rm ina te dis tanc e. Dr

. N olt e not ed num er ous oth er

inj ur ie s onD uP ri s’ 1 0 bo d y , a n d c a t e g o r i z e d t h e s e i n j u r i e s a s “ b l u n t f

o r c e t r au m a ” c o n s i s t e n t w i t h th ose 11 sustain ed by

being run ov er w ith a m otor vehicle. How ever, the cause of dea th was 12 determ ined to be the guns hot wound to the tem ple. Sam ples from DuPr is’ bodywe re 13 co lle ct ed

f or a na ly sis , inc lud ing or al , va gin al , a nd r ec ta l sw ab s. 14 { 10} A hom ic ide inv es tig at ione nsue d. H ow ev er , af te r m onths o f inv es tig at ion , the 15 ca se r em ai ne d un sol ve d and w en t c old

. I n 20 11, the c as e w as r eo pe ne d w ith 16 D et ec tiv e Sa lly

D y er a ssi gne d a s c as e agen t. D y er r ev ie w ed

the f ile a nd 17 reinterview ed witnesses. DN A analy sis, using technolog y that wa s m ore advanced 18 than had previou sly

been available, wa s already underway

at the state cr im e lab w hen6

1 D y er be cam e ca se a ge nt. The te st in g w as c ondu ct ed to de te rm ine if

am at chc oul d 2 be m ad e w itha ny

of the thr ee m enw ho h ad

be ensus pe ct s inthe ini tia l i nve sti ga tio n, 3 specifically

J ared Y oung er, Calvin W infield, and H arry Ray

. Calvin W infield had 4 be enasus pe ct

in a dif fe re nt m ur de r, of aw om ankil le d w itha9 m ill im et er handgun 5 less th an a m ile f

ro m w he re D uP ri s w as f

ound

. T he 9 m ill im et er

use d by W inf ie ld 6 to m urder the w om an, and comm it suic i d e, was te sted against th e bullet recovere d 7 from DuPr is, but the results wer e inconclusiv e. 8 { 11} O n F eb ruary 24 , 201 2, D y er w as inf orm ed that on e of

the sw ab s take n f

ro m 9 D uP ri s’ body

ha d r et ur ne d am at chto D ef

en da nt. B as ed on the da ta ba se m at ch , she 10 obtained a search w arrant for a D NAs amp l e fr o m De fendant, and cond ucted an 11 int ervi eww ithhim

. D y er te sti fi ed that sh e obt ai ne d th e se ar chw ar rant i n or de r to 12 co nf irm the D N A m at ch

. 13 { 12} A t hi s in te rv ie w , D ef en da nt g av e a D N A sa m ple via abuc ca l sw ab of

his 14 m outh

. When asked a bout what he wa s doin g in 1991, he told detectives th at he had 1 5 a h ab i t o f f

re qu en t i n g p ro s t i tu t es . De fe n d an tex p l ai n ed t h at h e w o u l d“ s o m et i m e[ s ], 16 y ou know, if I’ m

on the way

up, and som ebody ’ s hitchhi king , I ’ ll see her out there, 1 7 yo ukn o w –

ye a h , I ’l l p u l l o v e r

a n dt a l k t o t h e m. Y o u kn o w , i f i t e n d e d up t h a twa y, 18 tha t’ s th e w ay

it en de d up . . . . ” Whe n a ske d if he ha d e ve r ha d c ont ac t w ithD uP ri s,7

1 De fendan t re plied, “ [n] ot that I know of,” which D efendant explained to m ean that 2 he c oul d no t r em em

be r. D ef en da nt al so re pli ed “ [n ] ot tha t I kno wof ” w he n a ske d if 3 he pa id fo r ro ugh se x, an d he ex pla ine d tha t his “ se x . . . som et im es, it ge ts a li tt le 4 funky

. ” Whe n pr es se d by D et ec tiv es , he co uld not e xpl ai n ho whis D N A w as pr es en t 5 on DuPris, stating “ [t] hat’ s som ething for y ou peop le to find out h ow. ” 6 { 13} A ft er

the int er vie w , D et ec tiv e D y er re que ste d re co rd s of phone c onve rs at ion s 7 m ad e by

D ef en da nt to his e x- w if

e fr om the c or re ct ion al f

ac ili ty w he re he w as hou se d. 8 In one call, m ade af

ter his interview with detectives, De fendant told his ex-w ife that 9 “ [ t ] he y c a n’ t ge t m e on i t , no t f i r st - de gr e e m

ur de r , i f t he y ge t m e on a ny t hi ng . ” In 10 another call, De fendant instructed his ex-w ife to “ j unk” his red D odge picku p truck 11 th athe ha d o wne d i n 1 99 1. 12 { 14} Based on the conversations betwee n Def endant and his ex-w ife, investig ators 13 obtained a search w arrant for the v ehicle and seized i t for exam ination

. Investigators 14 ch ec ke d th e veh ic le f or “ tr ac e el em en ts” suc h a s bl ood, D N A , a nd f ibe rs . U sin g a 15 ch em ic al c al le d “ lum inal ” inves tig at or s f ound the pr es en ce of

blo od o n th e fr ont 16 be nc h s eat of t he tru ckan d i n t he tru ck ’s bed

. Te s ti m on y fro m Eve To ku m aru , a 17 fo re nsi c sc ie nti st at the N ew Me xic o D ep ar tm en t of P ubl ic S af

ety , c onf irm ed that the 18 fr ont be nc h se at

ha d bl ood on it, an d that the blo od wa s hum an . H ow ev er , due to the8

1 age of the sam

ple, T okum aru wa s onlyable to cre ate a par tial DN A profile, which 2 w as not

suf fi ci en t t o id en tif

y the sourc e of

the blo od. 3 { 15} T he D N A sa m

ple take n f

ro m D ef en da nt w as a na ly ze d and com pare d to the 4 DNA pro fil e co m

pi le d fr om

th e swa b t ak en fro m

DuPr is ’ bo dy. Ann et te Orti z, a 5 fo ren si c sc ie nt is t at th e St at e Cri m e Lab , t es ti fie d th at a co m pa ris on of t he two DNA 6 sam ples could n ot elim inate De fendant as a source of the DN A found on an oral swa b 7 spe rm pa la te take n f

ro m D uP ri s’ m outh. C athe ri ne D ic ke y , a fo re nsi c sc ie nti st w ith 8 the A lbu que rque P oli ce D ep ar tm ent, te st ifie d th at

spe rm c el ls c ange ne ra lly

be 9 detected on an oral swa b between tw o and six h ours after being deposited, notin g that 10 on ly one st ud y

ha d fo un d s pe rm

cel ls up to 24 ho ur s af

te r de po si t. 11 { 16} O n M ar ch26, 201 5, D ef en da nt w as f

ound gui lty of f ir st- de gr ee m

ur de r a nd 12 se nte nc ed

to lif e im pr iso nm en t. I n his ap pe al , D ef en da nt ch al le nge s his c onvi ct ion 13 on two ground s. First, he contends that the State f ailed to present sufficient evidence 14 tha t he m

ur de re d D uP ri s. Sec ond, he ar gue s that the St at e fa ile d to pr es en t su ff ic ie nt 15 ev id en ce o f hi s d el ib erat iv e in te nt to en d h er l ife

. 16 STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W 17 { 17} When review ing for subs tantial evidence, w e determ ine “ whether subs tantial 18 ev ide nc e of

e ith er a dir ec t or ci rc um stanti al na tur e ex ist s to s uppo rt ave rd ic t of

gui lt9

1 be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t wi th res pe ctto ev ery el em en t es se nt ia l t o a co nv ic ti on .” 2 State v

. A sto rga , 201 5- N MS C- 007, ¶ 57, 343 P

. 3d 1 245 (quot ing Sta te v . Sut phi n , 3 1988 -N MS C- 031, ¶

21, 107 N

. M. 126 , 753 P

. 2d 1 314)

. W e “ vie wthe e vid en ce in 4 the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the gui lty

ve rd ic t, ind

ulg ing a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s and 5 resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict. ” A sto rga , 6 2015 -N MS C- 007, ¶

57. “ T his [ C]ou rt do es not w ei gh the e vid en ce a nd [ doe s] not 7 subs titute its judgm ent for that o f th e fact finder s o long as there is suffic ient evidence 8 to sup port the verdict.” Sut phi n , 198 8- N MS C- 031, ¶ 21. T he refore , wh en the re is 9 subs tanti al e vid en ce to supp ort the c onvi ct ion, the ve rd ic t w ill not be dis tur be d on 10 ap pe al

. Id

. 11 DISC US SION 12 { 18} First-degree m

urder consists of “ the killin g of o n e h u m an being byanother 13 without lawf

ul j ustification . . . (1) by

any kind o f w illful, deliberate and prem editated 14 kil lin g. ” N MS A 197 8, § 30 -2 -1 (A )( 1) ( 1994 ). T he j ur y w as ins tr uc te d th at : 15 Fo r a con vic tio n of wi llf ul and de lib er at e m

ur de r, the S ta te m

ust pr ove 16 be y ond a re as ona ble doubt tha t: 17 1. D ef

en da nt k ill ed

D uP ri s; 18 2. T he kil lin g w as w iththe de lib er at e int en tio n to take aw ay the 19 lif

e of D uP ri s; 20 3. T his ha ppe ne d inN ewMe xic o onor about the 26th da y

of 21 Decem

be r, 19 91

.10

1 { 19} As to De fendant’ s first ar gu m e nt , h e a r gu e s t hatt he pur e l y c i r c um stantial 2 ev ide nc e pr es en te d w as not suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng o f gui lty

be y ond 3 a re as ona

ble doubt. Sp ec if

ic al ly , D ef

en da nt p oin ts t o th e la ck of e vid en ce that he 4 owned, had access to, or had ever used a 9 m illim eter handgun; th at there wa s another 5 pe rs on s uspe ct ed

of f ac tua lly ind ist ing uis hable c ri m es that the pol ic e ru le d ou t; an d 6 tha t the gunbe lie ve d to ha ve be enuse d in tho se oth er c ri m es w as not

r ule d ou t a s th e 7 m ur de r w ea pon in this hom ic ide

. The se fa ct s, D ef en da nt ar gue s, de m onstrate that the 8 evidence, e ven when viewe d in a light m ost favorable to the verdict, does not sup port 9 the j ury ’ s finding that he wa s the m an who killed DuPris. T he State, in response, 10 co nte nds tha t the phy sic al e vid en ce of D ef en da nt’ s sp er

m , his state m en ts t o th e 11 pol ic e, a nd the dis co ve ry of hum anblo od i n hi s tr

uc k su ppor te d th e j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t. 12 { 20} In Stat e v . M on toya , 2 015-N MS C- 010, 345 P

. 3d 1 056, w e he ld tha t, 13 “ [c] ontrary

evidence suppo rting acquittal do es not provi de a basis for r eversal 14 because the j ury

is free to rej ect D efendant’ s version of the facts.” Id. ¶ 52. Further , 15 “ [w ] e do n ot e va lua te the e vid en ce to det er m ine w he the r som e hy

pothe sis co uld

be 16 de sig ne d w hic h is c onsi ste nt w ithaf ind ing of inn oc en ce , a nd w e do no t weig h the 17 ev ide nc e or

sub sti tut e our

j udgm en t for th at of

the f ac t f ind er so l ong as the re is 18 sufficient evidence to supp ort the verdict.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d.)11

1 { 21} The e vidence presented at t ri al proved that Defe ndant liv ed about five m iles 2 from w he r e D uP r i s’ b ody

w a s f ound , t hath e f

r e qu e nt e d pr os t i tut e s onC e ntral 3 Ave nu e , t hat he owne d a r e d pi c ku p, a nd t hat he a t t e m

pt e d t o di sp os e of his truck 4 before police seize d it. It is also clear from the evidence t hat Def endant’ s sperm

wa s 5 pr es en t onor al sw ab s take n fr om D uP ri s’ body , an d that hum anblo od w as f

ound on 6 th e fro nt sea t o f Defen da nt ’s tru ck

. 7 { 22} A cc or din gly , w e hol d th at the j ur y w as pr es en te d w ith suf

fi ci en t ev ide nc e to 8 supp ort i ts f

in di ng tha t D ef

en da nt k ill ed

D uP ri s be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. 9 A ddi tio na lly , w he n c onsi de ri ng the tot al ity of the e vid en ce pr es en te d li nki ng 10 De fendant to t h e cr im e, the j ury wa s free to disregard De fendant’ s argum ent that 11 another susp ect had m urdered DuPr is, notwithstandin g the questio ns left unanswered 12 ab ou t t he m

ur de r weap on . 13 { 23} A s to D ef

en da nt’ s se co nd arg um en t, he co nte nds tha t the St at e fa ile d to pr es en t 14 suf fi ci en t e vid en ce that, if

he ind ee d ki lle d D uP ri s, he did so wi th d el ibe rate int en tio n 15 to end her life. Specif ically , he argues that no testim ony or evidence w as presented 16 tha t he “ w ei ghe d th e co nsi de ratio ns f or a nd a ga ins t hi s pr opos ed

c our se of a ct ion ; and 17 tha t he w ei ghe d and c onsi de re d th e que sti on of k ill ing a nd h is r ea sons f or a nd a ga ins t 18 his choice.” Se e Sta te v . T ay lor , 200 0- N MC A -0 72, ¶ 19, 129 N

. M. 376 , 8 P

. 3d 8 63.12

1 T he S ta te c ont en ds tha t the e vid en ce of D uP ri s’ abduc tio n, the fata l guns hot w ound 2 to h er he ad , a nd the pr es en ce of D ef en da nt’ s sp er

m on D uP ri s’ b od y su pport ed the 3 j ur y ’ s f ind ing of gui lt. 4 { 24} T he j ur

y w as ins tr uc te d th at : 5 A del ib erat e in te nt io n re fers to th e st at e o f m in d o f th e d efen da nt . A 6 de lib er at e int en tio n m ay be inf er re d f ro m al l of the f

ac ts and 7 ci rc um stanc es of the kil lin g. T he w or d de li be rat e m eans arr ive d a t or 8 de te rm ine d up on a s ar es ult of care fu l thoug ht and the w ei ghi ng o f the 9 consideration for and against th e proposed course of action. Ac a lculated 10 jud gm en t an d d eci si on m ay be arri ve d a t i n a sh or t p eri od of t im e. A 11 m er e unc onsi de re d and r as h im pul se , ev en tho ugh it inc lud es a n in te nt 12 to k ill , is not

ade lib er at e int en tio n to kil l. T o c on stitut e a de lib er at e 13 kil lin g, the slay er m ust w ei gh and c onsi de r the que sti on o f kil li ng and 14 his reasons for and against su ch a choice. 15 16 W e hav e h eld that “ [d] eliberate intent m ay be inferr ed from

the particular 1 7 ci rc u m s t a n c e s o f

t h e k i l l i n g a s p r o v e db y t h e S t a t e t h r o u g h t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of 18 ph y si c a l e vi de nc e. ” Sta te v . D uran , 200 6- N MS C- 035, ¶ 8, 140 N

. M. 94, 140 P

. 3d 19 515. Furthe r, “ [i ] nte nt is subj ec tiv e an d is al m ost a lw ay s in fe rr ed

f ro m oth er f ac ts i n 20 the case, as it is rar ely established bydirect evidence. ” Id

. ¶ 7 (c itations om i t t ed). 21 Se e als o Sta te v . G ue rra , 201 2- N MS C- 027, ¶ 28, 284 P.3d 10 76 (“ Inde te rm ini ng 22 w he the r a de fe ndant m ad e a ca lc ula te d ju dgm en t to kill, the j ur y m ay inf er int en t f ro m 23 ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce ; di re ct e vid en ce of

ade fe ndant’ s st at e of

m ind is not13

1 required.” ). 2 { 25} T he e vid en ce pr es en te d a t tri al de m onstrate s th at D ef en da nt h ad

apa tte rn of 3 frequenting prostitutes, that he abducted DuPris and that she did no t go willingly , that 4 his spe rm

w as f ound in D uP ri s’ m outh, a nd tha t the c au se of de ath w as asin gle 5 gu n s hot wound to the right tem ple of DuPr is’ head. Area sonable jury could infer 6 fr om the se f ac ts, the sur

ro undi ng c ir cu m stanc es of D uP ri s’ a

bduc tion, and the 7 loc at ionw he re the body w as f ound that D ef en da nt e nga ge d inac al cu la te d se ri es of 8 ac ts d es ign ed

to ab duc t, r ap e, a nd k ill D uP ri s. A ddi tio na lly , a re as ona ble j ur y c oul d 9 inf er that a ft er D ef en da nt f or ce d D uP ri s to en ga ge in i nte rc our se , a nd b ef or e shoo tin g 10 her in the head, he we ighed the consequences of his cou rse of a ction, and considered 11 the que sti on o f kil li ng DuP ri s. A cc or din gly , w e hol d th at the re w as suf

fi ci en t 12 ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t tha t D ef

en da nt k ill ed

D uP ri s w iththe de lib er at e 13 intent to end her life. 14 CON CLU SION 15 { 26} T he re w as suf

fi ci en t ev ide nc e both tha t D ef en da nt k ill ed

D uP ri s and tha t he 16 did so w ithade lib er at e int en t. A cc or din gly , D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ionis af

fi rm ed

. 17 { 27} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 18 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ 19 P ETR A JIME NEZ

MA ES, Justice14

1 WE CO NCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 CHA RLE S D AN IELS, Ch ief Justice

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice
6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 7 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Justice
8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 9 JUD ITH N AKA MU RA , Just ice