IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 29,185 4 ROBERTO L. RAMIREZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 7 Don Maddox, District Judge 8
Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Templeman & Crutchfield, PA 12 Barry C. Crutchfield 13 Lovington, NM 14 for Appellant 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 KENNEDY, Judge. 17 Roberto Ramirez (Defendant) appeals from a judgment and sentence entered 18 December 17, 2008 following a jury trial wh ere he was convicted of involuntary 192 manslaughter. [RP 217-18] We issued a proposed notice of summary disposition, 1 proposing to affirm. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition on April 14, 2009. 2 Having duly considered Defendant’s arguments, we affirm. 3 DISCUSSION 4 Defendant argues on appeal that the fact s presented at trial do not support a 5 conviction for involuntary manslaughter. [MIO unnumbered 3] In order for 6 Defendant to be found guilty of manslaughter, the State must present sufficient 7 evidence for a reasonable factfinder to surmise Defenda nt’s acts were, individually 8 or in combination with the acts of others, the but-for cause of death. See UJI 14-251 9 NMRA; State v. Montoya , 2003-NMSC-004, ¶ 18, 133 N.M. 84, 61 P.3d 793. 10 Defendant’s position is that although he inadvertently shot Victim in the face, 11 Victim’s cause of death was medical malpractice and not the wound Defendant 12 inflicted. [MIO unnumbered 3] 13 The jury instructions in this case required the State to prove beyond a 14 reasonable doubt that Defendant’s act, “in a natural and continuous chain of events, 15 uninterrupted by an outside event, resulted in the death,” and absent Defendant’s act, 16 “the death would not have occurred.” UJI 14-251. [RP 129] UJI 14-251 also 17 instructs the jury “there may be more thanone significant cause of death. If the acts 18 of two or more persons significantly contri bute to the cause of death, each act is a 193 significant cause of death.” [RP129] UJI 14-252 NMRA states, “contributing 1 negligence [by another person or pers ons] does not relievethe defendant of 2 responsibility for an act that significantly contributed to the cause of the death so long 3 as the death was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions.” [RP 130] 4 Defendant contends that the eviden ce presented at trial shows medical 5 malpractice was an outside, interrupting ev ent, without which Vi ctim would not have 6 died. [MIO unnumbered 3-4] Defendant argues that due to the evidence of 7 malpractice, there was insufficient evid ence to support a finding that he caused 8 Victim’s death. [MIO unnumbered 3-4] “The reviewing court does not weigh the 9 evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as long as there is 10 sufficient evidence to support the verdict.” State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 11 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789. A sufficiency of the evidence review involves a two-step 12 process. Initially, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. 13 Then the appellate court must make a legal determination of “whether the evidence 14 viewed in this manner could justify a fi nding by any rational trier of fact that each 15 element of the crime charged has beenestablished beyond a reasonable doubt.” State 16 v. Apodaca , 118 N.M. 762, 766, 887 P.2d 756, 760 ( 1994) (internal quotation marks 17 and citation omitted). 18 The elements of involuntary manslaughterare that Defendant pointed a loaded 194 firearm at Victim that went off, shooti ng the Victim. Defendant should have known 1 of the danger involved in his actions; he act ed with a willful disregard for the safety 2 of others; his act caused the death of Vic tim; and that the events occurred in New 3 Mexico on or about July 14, 2007. UJI 14-251. [RP 129] On appeal, Defendant 4 argues only that a reasonable jury could not have found that his act caused the death 5 of Victim; and the evidence presented supports a finding that the hospital’s failure to 6 administer an anti-coagulant was the but-fo r cause of death. [MIO unnumbered 3-4] 7 Defendant argues Victim wa s recovering and would not have died of his gunshot 8 wound absent medical malpractice. [MIO 2-4] 9 The jury instructions provided clear di rection that there may have been more 10 than one significant cause of death and the negligence of another party does not 11 relieve Defendant of responsibility for hi s own negligence. [RP 129-30] This 12 principle is also supporte d by New Mexico case law. See State v. Simpson , 116 N.M. 13 768, 772, 867 P.2d 1150, 1154 (1993) (holding a defendant's conduct need not be the 14 sole cause of the crime. It is only requi red that the result be proximately caused by, 15 or the natural and probable consequence of the accused's conduct. The conduct of 16 other parties is relevant onl y if it is a superseding causethat negates the defendant's 17 conduct). 18 We can only overturn Defendant’s c onviction on appeal if we find clear 195 evidence in the record that he played t oo minor a causal role in Victim’s death to 1 justify criminal punishment. See Montoya , 2003-NMSC-004, ¶ 19. However, 2 viewing the evidence in the light most favor able to the verdict, we cannot say the 3 evidence supports such a finding. We hold sufficient evidence was presented at trial 4 to support a finding that Defendant’s act was a significant cause of death, and but for 5 Defendant’s actions, Victim’s death w ould not have occurred. We affirm. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 9

WE CONCUR: 10

11 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 12

13 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 14