Opinion ID: 891664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: {11} Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence of deliberate murder to support his first degree murder conviction. We disagree. {12} 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. Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 5, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In applying this standard, an appellate court review[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict. State v. Rudolfo, 2008-NMSC-036, ¶ 29, 144 N.M. 305, 187 P.3d 170 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In reviewing the evidence, the relevant question is whether  any rational jury could have found each element of the crime to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Garcia, 114 N.M. 269, 274, 837 P.2d 862, 867 (1992). The reviewing court does not substitute its judgment for that of the jury: [c]ontrary evidence supporting acquittal does not provide a basis for reversal because the jury is free to reject [the d]efendant's version of the facts. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829. Nor will this Court evaluate the evidence to determine whether some hypothesis could be designed which is consistent with a finding of innocence. State v. Graham, 2005-NMSC-004, ¶ 13, 137 N.M. 197, 109 P.3d 285 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {13} In New Mexico, first degree murder includes any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing[.] NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1(A)(1) (1963) (amended 1994). A deliberate decision is one 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. UJI 14-201 NMRA. Intent is subjective and is almost always inferred from other facts in the case, as it is rarely established by direct evidence. State v. Sosa, 2000-NMSC-036, ¶ 9, 129 N.M. 767, 14 P.3d 32 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {14} The State presented substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion that Defendant killed Victim with deliberate intent. There was background evidence of Defendant's state of mind prior to the day of the murder. Defendant was upset and depressed after Moten ended their six-year relationship and made futile attempts to reconcile with Moten. Grandmother testified that the relationship between Defendant and Moten was obsessive, that she had encouraged Defendant to get counseling and that hell might break loose if Defendant discovered that Moten and Victim were seeing each other. While in California, Defendant made a phone call to Grandmother and told her that he was returning to Clovis because he didn't take care of things before he had left and how he will just get everything done. The night before the murder, Defendant broke into Moten's house and left her a letter that stated his desire to reconcile with her and to maintain his family. He wrote that Moten was the world in [his] life and that he could not breathe without her and their two children. He expressed his concerns about Victim messing around with Parsons and wrote that he would snap and [lose] it if Victim [got] out of line with her. On the day of the murder, Defendant confronted Victim at the daycare and the two began arguing loudly about Moten until Defendant told Victim that they should go talk at [his] house. The two continued arguing, and at one point, they were in each other's face. When they separated, Defendant called Victim a bitch and Victim called Defendant a coward. Defendant then went into his apartment and five to ten seconds later, came out running towards Victim and Aultman with a gun in his hand. Defendant yelled, I'll kill you. I'll kill you as he shot at Victim five or six times. Additionally, the jury was presented with physical evidence from which it could have inferred deliberate intent. There was evidence that Victim was shot two times at point-blank range while he was in the passenger seat of the car and was once again shot in his buttocks as he was attempting to flee from the car. {15} Relying on State v. Taylor, 2000-NMCA-072, 129 N.M. 376, 8 P.3d 863 and Garcia, 114 N.M. 269, 837 P.2d 862, Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder. In claiming that his actions were no different than those in Taylor and Garcia [sic], Defendant contends that [t]here was no evidence to sustain a finding that [Defendant] weighed the considerations for and against his proposed course of action; and that he weighed and considered the question of killing and his reasons for and against his choice. We disagree. {16} In Taylor, the Court of Appeals reversed a first degree murder conviction because there was insufficient evidence of Defendant's deliberation. 2000-NMCA-072, ¶¶ 24, 26, 129 N.M. 376, 8 P.3d 863. In that case, while the defendant and his wife were at home, the wife slapped their eighteen-month-old daughter in the face. Id. ¶ 4. After the wife hit the baby the third time, the defendant retrieved a gun and shot his wife three times. Id. ¶ 5. Defendant told the police that his wife had the devil in her eyes when she was slapping the baby and that he shot the devil. Id. After a competency hearing pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 31-9-1.5 (1988) (amended 1999), the district court found that there was clear and convincing evidence that [the d]efendant committed first degree murder. Id. ¶ 7. {17} The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that the events surrounding the shooting are vague .... [and] our knowledge of the circumstances is limited. Id. ¶¶ 20, 26. The Court held that the judicial findingsthe defendant's confusion between his wife and the devil, the fact that he wandered through the desert looking for his wife after he had already shot her, and the defendant's statements that his daughter was with his wife and with Godput into question [the d]efendant's state of mind at the time of the shooting, and they raise grave doubts about whether [the d]efendant's killing of [his wife] was the result of careful thought. Id. ¶ 21 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). The Court held that the strongest evidence supporting the district court's finding of first degree murderthe defendant's admission that he armed himself with a gun and shot his wife after she had slapped their baby the third timewas insufficient for a finding of deliberate murder. Id. ¶¶ 22, 26. The Court reasoned that [a]lthough the retrieval of weapon could have given [the] [d]efendant the opportunity to deliberate about killing [his wife], there is no evidence from which we can permissibly infer that [the] [d]efendant actually did so. We have no statements before the shooting that he wanted to kill [his wife] or wished her dead. Id. ¶ 22. The Court held that there was no evidence of a carefully crafted plan to kill, or of [the d]efendant's hot pursuit of the victim, or a manner of death requiring an extended time to complete, such as strangling and suffocating the victim, id. (internal citations omitted), and reversed the district court's finding of first degree murder, id. ¶ 26. {18} In Garcia, this Court also reversed a conviction for first degree murder because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of deliberate intent. 114 N.M. at 275-76, 837 P.2d at 868-69. In that case, the defendant and the victim began arguing, subsequently made up, then began fighting again until ultimately the defendant stabbed the victim. Id. at 270, 837 P.2d at 863. We concluded that [t]here was no evidence to support the jury's conclusion that ... [the defendant] decided to stab [the victim] as a result of careful thought; that he weighed the considerations for and against his proposed course of action; and that he weighed and considered the question of killing and his reasons for and against this choice. Id. at 274, 837 P.2d at 867. We held that the defendant's conduct was consistent with a rash and impulsive killing, id. at 275, 837 P.2d at 868, and thus reversed the first degree murder conviction, id. at 276, 837 P.2d at 869. {19} The instant case is distinguishable from Taylor and Garcia. In both Taylor and Garcia, there was no evidence of the defendants' state of mind prior to the respective killings. Here, the State presented evidence of Defendant's emotional state regarding the recent break up in the weeks prior to the murder as established by Defendant's conversations with Grandmother, the letter he wrote to Moten, and the fact that he and Victim were arguing about Moten in the moments leading up to the killing. Defendant also expressed his attitude toward Victim in a threatening tone when he wrote the letter to Moten. {20} Additionally, the nature of the killing in this case further distinguishes it from Taylor and Garcia. The manner in which Defendant continued to shoot Victim differed significantly from the way the Taylor and Garcia defendants killed their respective victims. While the Taylor defendant's retrieval of a gun and subsequent shooting of his wife after seeing her slap their daughter for the third time and the Garcia defendant's fatal stabbing which came in the midst of a period of fighting and making up were insufficient to prove deliberate intent, a reasonable jury could infer deliberate intent based on Defendant's actions in this case. Defendant came running out of his apartment yelling, I'll kill you. I'll kill you[,] as he began to shoot at Victim. He first shot from about thirty-eight feet away and then ran towards Victim and fired four or five more shots. Defendant fired two of the shots from less than four inches from Victim's body and then shot Victim one final time as Victim was attempting to escape from the car. See State v. Garcia, 95 N.M. 260, 261-62, 620 P.2d 1285, 1286-87 (1980) (finding of deliberate intent when defendant was aggressor and victim had tried to run away before fatal shot). {21} The evidence of Defendant's state of mind in the days leading up to the murder and his declaration of his intent to kill Victim just before opening fire, coupled with the physical evidence is sufficient to prove Defendant's deliberate intent to kill. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Defendant killed Victim with deliberate intent. Defendant's first degree murder conviction is affirmed.