Opinion ID: 1358977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Burden

Text: The defendant claims fundamental error because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the State's burden of disproving the defendant's exculpatory statement with proof sufficient to meet the reasonable doubt standard. Defendant concedes that he did not object at trial to the court's failure to instruct on the State's burden of proof. We have previously stated that the burden of proof is that set out in Lopez, and not the standard of disproving the statement beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Lopez . We hold there was sufficient evidence under the Lopez standard for the jury to believe the State's theory on intent and to disbelieve defendant's denials of deliberation and intent. We have stated: In determining whether the evidence supports a criminal charge or an essential element thereof, the appeals court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, resolving all conflicts therein and indulging all permissible inferences therefrom in favor of a verdict of conviction. [Citations omitted.] State v. Lankford, 92 N.M. 1, 2, 582 P.2d 378, 379 (1978). We have reviewed the record and find there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant had the capacity to deliberate and form the specific intent to kill. A reviewing court may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Id.