Opinion ID: 2524378
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instruction on Mere Presence

Text: {30} Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it refused her tendered jury instruction on mere presence at a crime. She had wanted the jury to be instructed that merely being present at the scene of a crime would not have been sufficient to convict her, but rather that the State must prove that Defendant was a participant-someone who wanted the crime to be committed. The uniform jury instructions contain an instruction on mere presence at UJI 14-2823 NMRA 2001, and again the corresponding use note for that instruction states that no instruction on mere presence shall be given. In refusing the proffered instruction, the trial court noted that this Court has not included the instruction in the uniform jury instructions. As discussed above, the trial court did not err when it followed the mandate of this Court and refused the tendered instruction. {31} In addition, the committee commentary to UJI 14-2823 observes that this kind of instruction is not necessary because the subject is covered in the essential elements instruction. The trial court properly instructed the jury on the essential elements of the crimes of felony murder and false imprisonment, and the jury was also told that [t]he burden is always on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. UJI 14-5060 NMRA 2001. To meet that burden, the State was required to prove every element of the charges of felony murder and false imprisonment beyond a reasonable doubt. This requirement would have prevented the jury from finding Defendant guilty of these crimes based on her mere presence at the crime scene. Cf. State v. Stettheimer, 94 N.M. 149, 154, 607 P.2d 1167, 1172 (Ct.App. 1980) (stating that when a defendant requests an instruction that is already covered by the trial court's instruction, it is not error to refuse the instruction).