Court Opinion

ID: 9558942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:19:17.871375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:40.408323
License: Public Domain

ANDREWS, Judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I, like the majority, am of the opinion that the evidence before the jury in this case could have supported a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. The trial court erred in refusing this requested instruction. However, I believe the self-defense instruction was properly refused. In defining a killing in self-defense, U.J. I.Crim. 41.41 requires that there be an appearance of immediate danger to the defendant; that the defendant, in fact, be put in fear by the apparent danger and that defendant killed because of that fear. State v. Najar, 94 N.M. 193, 608 P.2d 169 (Ct.App.1980). While the record here includes some evidence concerning self-defense, in my opinion it is insufficient for submission of self-defense to the jury. Here, as in State v. Najar, supra, the evidence most favorable to a self-defense instruction was in statements made by defendant-that Serna had sworn at her and, gave her “a dirty look, as if he would kill” her shortly before she shot him. But in view of the fact that decedent was so drunk that he couldn’t get up out of the kitchen chair, there is no evidence of apparent danger. Nor is there evidence or inference that defendant was put in fear by the apparent danger or that defendant shot because of fear. Defendant may have been afraid, but not of Serna. The trial court was correct in refusing the self-defense instruction.