Opinion ID: 891814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficient evidence supports Defendant's deliberate intent to commit first-degree murder.

Text: {29} Defendant argues that this Court should reverse his conviction because there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of deliberate, first-degree murder and asserts that, at most, the evidence established an undeliberated crime of passion, which could be either manslaughter or second-degree murder. The State counters that Defendant's decision to aim the gun at [Victim] three separate times, overcoming some degree of physical resistance the second and third times, indicates that Defendant did not act impulsively, but rather acted with a deliberate intent to kill. {30} The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction. State v. Riley, 2010-NMSC-005, ¶ 12, 147 N.M. 557, 226 P.3d 656 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829. In reviewing whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction, we resolve all disputed facts in favor of the State, indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). [D]etermining the sufficiency of [the] evidence does require appellate court scrutiny of the evidence and supervision of the jury's fact-finding function to ensure that, indeed, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential facts required for a conviction. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {31} The requisite state of mind for first-degree murder is a willful, deliberate and premeditated intention to kill. NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1(A)(1) (1994); see State v. Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 6, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515. New Mexico's Uniform Jury Instruction 14-201 NMRA, defines the term deliberate as a means arrived at or determined upon as a result of careful thought and the weighing of the consideration for and against the proposed course of action. Although deliberate intent requires a calculated judgment to kill, the weighing required for deliberate intent may be arrived at in a short period of time. UJI 14-201. In determining whether the defendant made a calculated judgment to kill, the jury may infer intent from circumstantial evidence because direct evidence of the defendant's state of mind is not required. Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 7, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515. {32} The jury was instructed that in order to find Defendant guilty of deliberate, first-degree murder, the State needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1. The [D]efendant killed [Victim]; 2. The killing was with the deliberate intention to take away the life of [Victim]; 3. The [D]efendant was not suffering from intoxication at the time the offense was committed to the extent of being incapable of forming an intent to take away the life of another; 4. This happened in New Mexico on or about the 20th day of May, 2008. The jury was also instructed on the definition of deliberate intention. The instruction provided: A deliberate intention refers to the state of mind of the defendant. A deliberate intention may be inferred from all of the facts and circumstances of the killing. The word deliberate means arrived at or determined upon as a result of careful thought and the weighing of the consideration for and against the proposed course of actions. A calculated judgment and decision may be arrived at in a short period of time. A mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even though it includes an intent to kill, is not a deliberate intention to kill. To constitute a deliberate killing, the slayer must weigh and consider the question of killing and his reason for and against such choice. {33} Victim's neighbor, Stevic, testified that from his living room window he heard a commotion and witnessed Victim kneeling on the ground as Defendant stood over her pointing a rifle at her head. Stevic reported that Victim attempted to push the rifle away from her face twice, and that after both attempts Defendant repositioned the rifle so that it was pointing directly back at her face. Stevic further testified that as Defendant was pointing the rifle at Victim's face, he observed her pleading with Defendant. Stevic testified that Defendant fired four close range shots directly at Victim. The State's medical investigator also testified that the autopsy revealed five wounds on her body. Four wounds were penetrating. The fifth was a graze wound from one of the bullets before entering her body. Such evidence indicates that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Defendant weighed and considered his decision to kill, before shooting Victim four times. {34} The jury also heard testimony from Richard Johnson (Johnson), the owner of the Frontier Trading Post in Milan, who interacted with Defendant within an hour after Defendant had left the trailer park. In response to questions regarding whether Defendant appeared intoxicated, Johnson testified that Defendant was rather loud and obnoxious but did not appear to be intoxicated. Johnson further testified that Defendant asked to use the phone, and that during the conversation he overheard Defendant tell someone that he wouldn't be in to work for a week. The State also called Debbie Olivar (Olivar), a woman Defendant called from the Frontier Trading Post, to testify regarding what was said during the phone call. Olivar testified that Defendant stated he needed a week's vacation, and that he was in a heap of trouble. {35} Accordingly, reviewing the evidence in the light must favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Defendant acted with deliberate intent when he killed Victim.