Opinion ID: 628318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to Instruct on Consequences of Insanity Verdict

Text: 36 Finally, Lujan argues that his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial were violated when the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the consequences of rendering a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. At the time of Lujan's trial, no such instruction was required under New Mexico law. 4 In his direct appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court, Lujan argued that the court ought to reconsider that rule, established in State v. Chambers, 84 N.M. 309, 502 P.2d 999 (1972). The state court declined to do so, stating: 37 We do not believe that the change in the law requested by defendant would be proper. The jury is not to concern themselves with the consequences of their verdict. 38 State v. Lujan, 608 P.2d at 1116. 39 As we have indicated, habeas relief is not available for errors of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 480. Rather, the issue is  'whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.'  Id. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 482 (quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973)). We find no such due process violation. 5