Opinion ID: 1268268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Defendant's Conviction of First Degree Murder

Text: Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to show that he killed Louise Cecil and that the killing was with the deliberate intention to take away her life. In support of this contention, defendant notes that where circumstantial evidence is used to establish guilt in a prosecution for homicide, [t]hose circumstances must point unerringly to the defendant and be incompatible with and exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. State v. Coulter, 84 N.M. 647, 650, 506 P.2d 804, 807 (Ct.App. 1973). In State v. Brown, 100 N.M. 726, 676 P.2d 253 (1984), this court expressly recognized that the traditional distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence had been abolished in New Mexico. Accordingly, our only function on review is to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction. Id. at 728, P.2d at 255. Applying the above standard to the evidence presented to the trial court, we find sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction.