1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: A P R IL 18, 201 6 4 N O. 33, 823 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 JE SS CARPENTER, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF ED DYCO UN TY 11 Jan e Sh ul er Gr ay, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Steven H . Johnston , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 for Appellee 17 Ray T w ohi g 18 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} De fendant, Jess Carpenter, ap peals his conv iction for invo luntary 4 m an sla ught er . D ef

en da nt arg ue s th at

the re is in su ffi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort the 5 fo urth e le m en t of

the j ur y ins tr uc tio n give n at tri al —tha t he c om m itt ed a n un law fu l 6 ac t not am ount ing to a fe lon y . D ef en da nt al so co nte nds tha t the St at e’ s failu re to 7 pr ove e ac h e le m en t of i nvol unt ar y m an sla ught er im pli ca te s hi s c onst itu tio na l r igh t 8 to a j ur y tr ia l. W e co nc lud e tha t the e vid en ce , a ss es se d ag ai nst the e le m en ts o f the 9 charged cr im e, is sufficient to supp o rt De fendant’ s invo luntary m anslaugh ter 1 0 c o n v i c t i o n a n dt h a tD e f e n d a n tw a s n o td e n i e dh i s r i g h tt o aj u ry t r i a l
. We a f f i rm. 11 I. FACTUAL AND PR OCEDURAL BACKG ROUND 12 { 2} On the evening of May 20, 2011 , De fendant and his friend, Joe D arra s, w ere 13 out drink ing at t hree Artesia establish m ents. After leaving th e third establishm ent, a t 14 ap pr ox im at el y

1: 30 a.m . on May 21, 2 01 1, t he m en went to Defen da n t ’s h o u s e . At 15 som e point between 1:30 a.m . and 2:0 0 a.m ., De fendant called 9 11 and reported that 1 6 h e s h o th i s fr i en dan dt h at h i s g u n h ad g o n e o ff ac ci d en t al l y. Ed d y Co u n t y Sh er i ff ’s 17 de put ie s arr ive d a t D ef en da nt’ s re sid en ce shor

tly af te r 2:0 0 a. m . D ef

en da nt tol d on e 18 de puty

that he a nd D ar

ra s ha d apr obl em w ith som eo ne at the ba r an d the y w er e goi ng2

1 to ge t the ir guns an d ta ke care of it, the n the gun ac ci de nta lly w en t of f. D ar ra s’ body 2 w as f ound in D ef en da nt’ s be dr oom . H e ha d be ensho t i n th e he ad
. 3 { 3} D ef

en da nt w as ta ke n int o c ust ody
. H is b loo d w as dr awn a t a ppr oxi m at el y

5:4 6 4 a. m . a nd his blood alcohol content was 0.116 gram s per m illiliter. D efen d an t wa s 5 charged w ith second d egree m urder, contrary t o NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1(B) ( 1994 ), 6 an d ne glige nt use of

ade ad ly w ea pon, c ontrary

to N MS A 197 8, § 30 -7 -4 (A )( 2) 7 (1 993)
. T he c as e pr oc ee de d to aj ur y tr ia l. 8 A . D ef

en da nt ’s Te st im on y atTr ial 9 { 4} D ef

en da nt te stif

ie d th at D ar ra s ha d an a lte rc at ionw ithsom eo ne a t the la st 10 establishm ent the two v isited and that on th e w ay back to Def

endant’ s hous e, Darras 11 wa s still up set about the incid ent and wa s goin g on and o n about it . B oth m en we re 12 unde r the inf

lue nc e of a lc ohol
. D ef

en da nt thoug ht h e cou ld g et D ar ra s to dr op the 13 is su e if Defe ndant g ot h is g uns an d to ld D ar ra s he w oul d go ba ck

a ft er the pe opl e 14 fr om the bar. H e exp ec te d Darr as to te ll him to for ge t abou t it. D ef en da nt thoug ht h e 15 co uld the n lo ck the gun s up . 16 { 5} Whe n D ef

en da nt an d D ar

ra s ar ri ve d at D ef

en da nt’ s ho use , D ef

en da nt g ot o ut 17 of D ar ra s’ tr uc k, w en t i nto his be dr oom , got a sh ot gu n fr om his c los et , a nd g ot a 18 pis tol f

ro m adr es se r dr aw er . H e pla ce d the shot gun by his be d and the pis tol in the 19 back of his pants. As D arra s cam e into the bedroom and asked Def

endant what he w as3

1 doi ng, D ef

en da nt de ci de d he w oul d tos s the pis tol on the be d so tha t he did not ha ve 2 it o n him

a s D ar ra s a ppr oa ch ed
. A s D ef

en da nt p ull ed

the gunout

of his pants , he 3 he ar d alou d bo om

a nd saw tha t D ar

ra s ha d be ensho t i n th e he ad
. D ef en da nt tri ed

to 4 sto p th e ble ed in g an d realize d th at D ar ra s w as not

a liv e. D ef

en da nt c al le d 91 1 and 5 wa ited for police to arrive. 6 { 6} D ef

en da nt a dm itt ed

that he w as fam ili ar w ith fi re ar m s, tha t he ha d hu nte d w ith 7 his f am ily , a nd h e ha d take n agunsa fe ty c our se a s ac hil d. As ana dul t, D ef en da nt 8 practiced shooting and hunt ed. Def endant testified that on the nigh t that Dar ras w as 9 killed, the pistol shoul d not h ave fire d unless the ham m er was cocked back, and that 1 0 t o h i s kn o w l e d g e h e n e v e r c o c k e dt h e h a mme r b a c k
. D e f e n d a n t d i d a d mi t t h a ta ts o me 11 poin t as he rem oved the pis tol from his pa n t s , i t m

u s t have been pointed to ward 12 D ar ra s, sin ce D ar

ra s w as sho t in the he ad
. D ef en da nt a lso a dm itt ed

that hi s dr ink ing 13 had im

paired his j udgm ent and that he shou ld not have been handlin g his gu ns that 14 nig ht. 15 B. Involuntary Manslaughte r 16 { 7} Under the provisions of NMS A 1978 , S ection 30-2-3(B) (1994), “ invo luntary 17 m a ns l aug ht e r ” i s “ t he u nl a w f ul k i l l i ng o f

ah um a n be i ng w i t ho ut m alice 18 . . . comm it te d in th e co m m is si on of a n u nl awfu l ac t n ot am ou nt in g t o fe lo ny, or in 19 the com

m issio n of a lawf

ul a ct[, ] which m ight p roduce death in an unlawful m anner4

1 or withou t due caution and circum spection.” (E m phasis add ed.) The j ury wa s 2 i n s t r u c t e dt h a ti n o r d e r

t o c o n v i c tD e f

e n d a n to f i n v o l u n t a ry

m a n s l au g h t e r , i th a dto 3 fi nd b ey ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t: 4 1. [D ] ef

en da nt p oin te d aloa de d pist ol at . . . D ar

ra s w hil e 5 [D ef

en da nt] w as und er

the inf lue nc e of a lc ohol ; 6 2. [D ] ef

en da nt s houl d have known of the dange r inv olv ed

by 7 poi nti ng a

loa de d pi sto l a t . . . D ar

ra s whi le [D ] ef

en da nt w as unde r the 8 inf

lue nc e of a lc ohol ; 9 3. [D ] ef

en da nt a ct ed

w ithaw ill fu l di sr eg ar d for the sa fe ty of oth er s; 1 0 4
. [ D ]e f

e n d a n tc o mm i t t e da n u nl awfu l ac t n o ta mo u n t i n g t o af e l o n y; 11 5. [D ] ef

en da nt’ s a ct

c au se d th e de ath of

. . . D ar ra s; [ an d] 1 2 6
. Th i s h ap p e n e di n Ne w M e x i c o o n o r ab o u tt h e 2 1 d a y o f

M a y, 13 2011
. 14 Th e involu ntary

m anslaugh ter instruction giv en at trial tra cks the uniform j ury 15 ins tr uc tio n on m an sla

ught er but the n ad de d tha t fo urth e le m en t no t c ont ai ne d inU JI 16 14-231 NMR

A. It is not clear f

rom the rec ord how this addi tional elem ent was a dded 17 to th e in st ru ct io n. Ho wev er, Defe nd an t d id no t o bjec t t o i t at tri al
. 18 { 8} A j ur

y f ound D ef en da nt g uil ty

of ne gli ge nt u se of

ade ad ly w ea pon an d 19 inv olu ntary

m an sla ught er , a le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse of se co nd d eg re e m

ur de r. P ri or 20 to s en te nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ionf

or ne gli ge nt5

1 use of a deadly

we apon was subsum ed within his conv iction for invo luntary 2 m an sla ught er a nd d ism iss ed

that c ha rg e. T his appe al f oll ow ed
. 3 II. DISC US SION 4 { 9} On appeal D efendant argues that there wa s insufficient evidence to sup port an 5 ad de d f

ourth e le m en t t o th e in voluntary m an sla ught er ins tr uc tio n. D ef

en da nt a lso 6 as se rt s th at

a ff irm ing his c onvi ct ionw iththi s a dde d e le m en t w oul d vi ola te his r igh t 7 to a tr ia l by j ur y . W e ad dr es s th es e ar gum en ts i n turn . 8 A. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e 9 { 10} “ Whe n re vie w ing a ch al le nge to the suf fi ci en cy of the ev ide nc e, we m ust 10 determ ine whether subs t an t i al evidence of either a direct or c ircum stantial nature 11 exists to suppo rt a ver dict of gu i l t b eyo nd a reasonable doubt with re spect to every 12 elem ent essential to a convictio n.” State v. Cordova , 201 6- N MC A -0 19, ¶ 16, 366 13 P.3 d 2 70 (in te rn al qu ot a t i o n marks an d c it at io n o m it te d) , cert. gran ted , 201 5- 14 N MC E RT -0 08, __ P
. 3d _ _. “ W e m ust vie w the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le 15 to the [s ] ta te , r es olv ing a ll co nf lic ts and i ndul gin g a ll pe rm iss ibl e inf er en ce s inf

av or 16 of the verdict.” State v. R eed , 2005 -N MS C- 031, ¶ 14, 138 N
. M. 365, 120 P. 3d 4 47. 17 { 11} De fendant argues that there w as i n sufficient evidence to supp ort the added 18 elem ent that he com

m itted an unlawful act not am ount ing to a fe lony . W e disagree. 19 De fendant’ s argum ent rests on the faul ty prem ise that the added elem ent is an6

1 es se nti al e lem en t of i nvol unt ar y m an sla ught er . D ef

en da nt d oe s no t di sput e tha t the 2 ev ide nc e w as suf

fi ci en t f or the r em ai nin g e le m en ts. 3 { 12} Af

ter brief ing was com

pleted in thi s cas e, the United States S uprem e Court 4 de ci de d the que sti on of “ howac ourt sh oul d a sse ss a c ha lle nge to the suf

fi ci en cy of 5 the evidence in a crim inal case w hen a j ury instruction adds an elem ent to the charged 6 crim e and the Governm ent fails to object. ” Musacchio v. U nited Sta tes , __ U
. S. __, 7 __, 136 S
. Ct. 7 09 , 7 13 (2 016)
. I n M usac ch io the de fe ndant w as ind ic te d un de r 18 8 U. S. C. § 103 0(a)( 2)(C) (2008), w hich provid es t hat a p erson com m its a cr im e w hen 9 he “ int en tio na lly

a cc es se s ac om

put er wit ho ut a

uth or iz at ion or

exceeds authorized 10 acce ss ,” an d i n d oi ng so “ ob ta in s . . . in fo rm at io n fr om an y pro te c t edco m

pu te r.” 11 M usac ch io , __ U
. S. at

__, 136 S
. Ct
. a t 71 3 ( om iss ionin or igi na l) ( int er na l qu ota tio n 12 m arks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). T he Co urt not ed tha t “ [t ] he sta tut e thu s pr ovid es two 13 w ay s of

c om m itt ing th e cr im e of

im pr ope rl y a cc es sin g apr ote ct ed

c om put er : ( 1) 14 obt ai nin g a cc es s w ith out au tho ri za tio n; an d (2 ) obt ai nin g ac ce ss w ithauth or iz at ion 15 but th en using that acce ss im properly .” Id

. ; see § 10 30( e) (6 ) (d ef

ini ng “ ex ce ed s 16 authorized acce ss” (internal quot ation m arks om itted)). The defendant was c harged 17 wit h c on sp iri ng to m ak e u na ut ho ri z e d acce ss to a co m pu te r. M usac ch io , __ U .S . a t 18 __, 136 S
. Ct
. a t 71 3.7

1 { 13} T he pr opos ed j ur y ins tr uc tio ns ide nti fi ed the co nspi ra cy co unt as in vo lvi ng 2 unauth orized acc ess to protected com puters, and did not require the j ury to find that 3 th e de fen da nt als o c on sp ire d t o e xc eed au th or iz edacce ss to pro te ct edco m pu te rs . Id

. 4 H ow ev er , the tr ia l c ourt di ve rg ed f ro m the ind ic tm en t and the pr opos ed ins tr uc tio ns 5 an d in str

ucte d th e jury “ tha t § 1030 (a )( 2) (C ) m ak es it ac ri m e fo r a pe rs on t o 6 int e n t i ona lly

a cc es s ac om

put er w ith out auth or iz at ion and

ex ceed au th or iz edacce ss .” 7 M usac ch io , 136 S
. Ct
. a t 71 4 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he 8 go ve rn m en t di d no t ob

ject to th e in st ru ct io n. Id

. A j ur y fo und the de fe ndant g uil ty of 9 co ns pi rin g t o m ak e u na ut ho riz edacce ss to a co m pu te r. Id

. 10 { 14} T he de fe ndant c ha lle nge d th e suf fi ci en cy of the e vi de nce t o su

ppor t hi s 11 c o n sp ira cy

co nv ic ti on . Id

. at 713. T he Suprem e Court re j ected the defe n d an t ’s 12 ar gum en t tha t “ the suf fi ci en cy of the ev id en ce s houl d be a sse sse d a ga ins t the 13 erroneous j ury instructio n that includ ed the addition al elem ent.” Id

. at 714. T he Court 14 recognized t hat in review ing for th e su fficiency of t he evidence, the reviewing court 15 “ m ak es ali m ite d in qui ry ta ilo re d to e nsur e tha t a

de fe ndant re ce ive s th e m ini m um 16 tha t du e pr oc es s r equir es : a ‘ m eanin gf

ul o ppor tun ity to de fe nd’ a ga ins t the c ha rg e 17 against him

and a j ury

finding o f guilt ‘b eyo nd a reasonable doubt .’ ” Id

. a t 71 5 18 (citat i o n om itted). “ The r eviewing court considers onlythe legal question whether , 19 aft er vie win g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e p ro se cu ti on , anyrational8

1 tr ie r of fa ct co uld ha ve f ound the e sse nti al e le m en ts o f the c ri m e be y ond a re as ona ble 2 doub t.” Id

. (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 3 { 15} The C ourt c onclud ed that “ the sufficiency of the evidence shou ld be assessed 4 against the ele m ents of the charged crim e. ” Id

. at 713
. “ [I ] f the j ur

y ins tr uc tio n 5 re qui re s th e j ur

y to fi nd [ gui lt on] tho se el em en ts . . . be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, the 6 de fe ndant h as be ena cc or de d th e pr oc ed ur e tha t this Co urt has re qui re d to pr ote ct the 7 presum ption of innocence.” Id

. a t 71 5 ( int er

na l qu otati on m arks a nd c itatio ns 8 om itted ). In that c as e, the a ddi tio n of a n e le m en t by

usi ng the w or d “ an d” in the 9 ins tr uc tio n r athe r than e lim ina tin g th e opt ion , a s pe rm iss ibl e by the sta tut e’ s us e of 10 the w or d “ or , ” did

not m ak e the a ddi tio na l e le m en t an e sse nti al e lem en t unde r the 11 st atut e. Id

. at 714. T hus, “ [t] he Governm ent’ s failure to introduce evidence of [the] 12 ad di ti on al ele m ent [ did] not im pl ic at e th e p rin ci pl es th atsu ffi ci en cy rev ie w pro te ct s.” 13 Id

. at 715. W e believe M

usac ch io is disp ositiv e here
. 14 { 16} In the present case, De fendant does not dispu te that he wa s properly charged 15 w ith the sta tut or

y el em en ts f

or inv olu ntary

m an sla ught er a s ale sse r inc lud ed

of fe nse 16 to s ec ond de gr ee m

ur de r; that he w as giv enam eanin gf ul opport uni ty to de fe nd 17 him se lf

a ga ins t those c ha rg es ; or that the e vid en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o c onvi ct him

of 18 th e st atut or y

ele m en ts of i nv ol un ta ry m an sl au gh te r. See § 30 -2 -3 (B ) (d ef ini ng 19 “ invo luntary

m anslaugh ter” as “ the unlawful k illing of a hu m an being without m alice9

1 . . . comm it te d i n t he co m m is si on of a n u nl awfu l ac t n ot am ou nt in g t o fe lo ny, or in 2 the com

m issio n of a law ful act[, ] which m ight produce death in an unlawful m anner 3 or w ith out due c au tio n and c ir cu m spe ct ion
. ” (e m pha sis a dde d) ). F or

the r ea sons 4 ex pla ine d in M

us ac chio , w e re

j ec t D ef en da nt’ s a sse rt ionthat the statut or y e le m en t 5 ad de d to the inv olu ntary m an sla ught er ins tr uc tio n is an es se nti al el em en t unde r the 6 statute. 7 { 17} A s a fi na l m at te r, D ef en da nt d oe s no t di sput e tha t the S ta te pr es en te d su ff ic ie nt 8 evidence to supp ort the j ury ’ s verdict. W e agre e. T he evidence presented at tria l wa s 9 tha t D ef

en da nt w as fam ili ar w ithf ir earm s and tha t onMay

21, 201 1, w hil e D ef

en da nt 10 ha ndl ed

aloa de d fi re ar

m unde r the inf

lue nc e of al co hol the fi re ar m dis ch ar ge d inthe 11 dir ec tio n of

D ar ras , wh o wa s hi t i n th e he ad by the dis ch ar ge d bu lle t and k ill ed
. 12 Ba se d onthi s e vid en ce , ar ea sona ble j ur y c oul d have f

ound the e sse nti al e le m en ts o f 13 inv olu ntary

m an sla ught er be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. 14 B. R igh t to a Ju ry Tr ial 15 { 18} D ef

en da nt ar gue s tha t the St at e’ s fa ilure to pr es en t an y ev ide nc e tha t he 16 com m itted an unlawful act not am ount ing to a fe lonyim plicates his cons titutio nal 17 right to a jury

trial. This ar gum ent, like D efendant’ s sufficiency of the evidence 18 ch al le nge , r el ie s onthe a dde d e le m en t in the giv en ins tr uc tio n—the co m

m iss ionof10

1 an unlawful ac t, not am ount ing t o a felo ny —as an essential elem ent of involu ntary 2 m an sla ught er . D ef

en da nt’ s c onst itu tio na l arg um en t i s a lso w ith out m er it. 3 { 19} T he F ourte en th A m en dm en t r equir es due pr oc es s inc ri m ina l pr oc ee din gs 4 inv olv ing sta te sta tut es , an d tog ethe r w ith the Si xth A m en dm en t ri ght to a tr ia l by 5 j ury , e ntitles “ a cr im inal defendant to a j ury determ ination that he is guilt y of every 6 elem ent of the crim e w ith which he is charged, bey ond a reasonable doubt.” A ppre ndi 7 v. New Jersey , 530 U
. S. 466 , 477 ( 2000 ) (a lte ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd 8 citation om itted). 9 { 20} T hus, if

aj ur y is ins tr uc te d on th e el em ents o f the c ri m e w ithw hic h th e 10 de fe ndant i s c ha rg ed , a nd the ins tr uc tio n r equir es the j ur

y to fi nd those e le m en ts 11 be y ond a re as ona

ble doub t, “ the de fe ndant h as be ena cc or de d th e pr oc ed ur e tha t this 12 Court has required to protec t the presum ption of innocence.” M

usac ch io , 136 S
. Ct
. 13 at 715. Where an instructio n includ es all of the elem ents of the charged crim e and an 14 al te rn at ive e le m en t, the a lternat ive e le m en t do es not be co m e ane sse nti al e le m en t 15 sim ply be ca use it is not ide nti fi ed as ana lte rn at ive e le m en t i n th e giv enins tr uc tio n. 16 Se e id. W e conclude that Def endant’ s right to a jury t rial un der the fe deral 17 constitu tion is not im

plicated under the circum stances of this case. 18 { 21} To the ex tent Def endant broadlyasserts that he m ay be entitled to greater 19 pr ote ct ionund er

the N ewMe xic o C onstit ut io n, he pr ovi de s th is C ourt w ithno11

1 ar gum en t i n su

ppor t of thi s a sse rt ion , a nd f

or thi s reas on we do n ot e nga ge in a 2 se pa rat e an al y si s to ad dr es s h is co nv ic ti on un de r th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. See 3 State v.G onza les , 2011-NMC A- 007, ¶ 19, 149 N. M. 226, 247 P. 3d 1111 ( stating th at 4 this Court has n o du t y t o re v iew an argum ent that is not adequately developed); 5 H ea dle y v. M orga n Mgm t. Co rp. , 200 5- N MC A -0 45, ¶ 15, 137 N
. M. 339 , 110 P
. 3d 6 1076 (sam e). 7 III. CON CLU SION 8 {2 2 } For the fore goin g reasons, w e af firm De fendan t ’s conviction for involun tary 9 m an sl au gh te r. 10 { 23} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
11 12 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e 13 WE CO NCUR:
14 15 JAM ES J. WEC HSLER , Jud ge
16 17 LIND A M . V AN Z I, Jud ge