Opinion ID: 2510247
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence of sufficient provocation existed to support an attempted voluntary manslaughter instruction

Text: {21} We next determine whether there was evidence of sufficient provocation to support an attempted voluntary manslaughter instruction. Failure to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense of a charged offense is reversible error if: (1) the lesser offense is included in the greater, charged offense; (2) there is evidence tending to establish the lesser included offense and that evidence establishes that the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed; and (3) the defendant has tendered appropriate instructions preserving the issue. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 16, 131 N.M. 195, 34 P.3d 139 (internal citation omitted). {22} Just as voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of second-degree murder, see State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038, ¶ 1, 121 N.M. 553, 915 P.2d 309 (noting that while defendant was charged with second-degree murder, he was convicted of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter), we recognize that attempted voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of attempted second-degree murder where sufficient provocation is at issue in the trial. As to the third requirement, we stated above that the Defendant has preserved the issue for appeal. The second requirement is the only remaining issue, so our analysis is limited to whether evidence of sufficient provocation was presented at trial to support the attempted voluntary manslaughter instruction. {23} With regard to the second requirement, we consider whether there is a rational view of the evidence that would lead the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the lesser included offense while still harboring a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the charged offense. See Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 17, 131 N.M. 195, 34 P.3d 139 (internal citation omitted). That Defendant here was convicted of attempted second-degree murder with regard to Washington is evidence that the jury rejected the State's argument that Defendant exhibited the requisite degree of intent necessary to convict him of attempted-first degree murder. Therefore, we need only consider whether there is evidence of sufficient provocation so that the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed attempted voluntary manslaughter while still harboring a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed attempted second-degree murder. {24} Sufficient provocation is defined as any action, conduct or circumstances which arouse anger, rage, fear, sudden resentment, terror or other extreme emotions. UJI 14-222 NMRA. The provocation must be such as would affect the ability to reason and to cause a temporary loss of self control in an ordinary person of average disposition. Id. Evidence of provocation exists to support a voluntary manslaughter instruction where the defendant feared the victim was attempting to get a gun with which to shoot the defendant, and the defendant acted to prevent the victim from getting the gun. See State v. Wright, 38 N.M. 427, 429, 34 P.2d 870, 871 (1934). Similarly, such evidence should also support an attempted voluntary manslaughter instruction. {25} In this case, Defendant's testimony that he was scared when he believed Washington was reaching for a gun provides evidence of sufficient provocation to support an attempted voluntary manslaughter instruction. See State v. Abeyta, 120 N.M. 233, 240, 901 P.2d 164, 171 (1995) (It is not unreasonable that the accused should be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter where the plea of self-defense fails.) (internal citations omitted). Defendant's testimony could not have been clearer when he stated [W]hen I seen him go for the gun, I was scared, and [i]n my mind, when I seen his hand go for his crotch area, I thought he had a pistol. That's the only reason I shot at him. Defendant further stated, Where I'm from, somebody coming out of that area [the waistline] ... it's more than likely ... that they are going to shoot you. We note also that the judge instructed the jury on voluntary manslaughter regarding the killing of Scott, presumably based on Defendant's testimony that he thought Scott had a gun. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the requested instruction, Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 5, 131 N.M. 195, 34 P.3d 139, we hold Defendant presented evidence of sufficient provocation to support an attempted voluntary manslaughter jury instruction. Accordingly, we reverse Defendant's conviction for attempted second-degree murder with regard to Count II, and remand to the trial court for a new trial on this count.