voluntary manslaughter instruction in New Mexico

2023Defendant argues that counsel alerted the district court that he sought a voluntary manslaughter instruction through the request for a provocation instruction because the lesser offense of second-degree murder is manslaughter under a jury finding of provocation. {14} We agree that Defendant sufficiently alerted the district court of his intention to obtain a manslaughter instruction because “[t]he critical difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter is the existence of legally sufficient provocation.” State v. Munoz, 1992-NMCA-004 , ¶ 5, 113 N.M. 489 , 827 P.2d 1303 .

2023Defendant argues that counsel alerted the district court that he sought a voluntary manslaughter instruction through the request for a provocation instruction because the lesser offense of second-degree murder is manslaughter under a jury finding of provocation. {14} We agree that Defendant sufficiently alerted the district court of his intention to obtain a manslaughter instruction because “[t]he critical difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter is the existence of legally sufficient provocation.” State v. Munoz, 1992-NMCA-004 , ¶ 5, 113 N.M. 489 , 827 P.2d 1303 .

2014Gaitan, 2002-NMSC-007, ¶ 11 . {13} Defendant contends that at trial the State explained Victim’s murder as a gang motivated retaliation intended to avenge the attack on Kevin that occurred within the preceding weeks.

2014Gaitan, 2002-NMSC-007, ¶ 11 . {13} Defendant contends that at trial the State explained Victim’s murder as a gang motivated retaliation intended to avenge the attack on Kevin that occurred within the preceding weeks.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2010As a result, insofar as the jury is presumed to have read and followed the instructions, see State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), we conclude that the jury was adequately informed. {11} We also note that our recent opinion State v. Sandoval, 2010-NMCA-025 , 147 N.M. 465 , 225 P.3d 795 (filed 2009), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-003 , 148 N.M. 560 , 240 P.3d 15 (2010), addressed a similar issue in which an error in jury instructions prevented the defendant from presenting self-defense with regard to one of the assailants.

2026Pointing to the district court’s grant of the self-defense instruction, Defendant asserts that as a consequence “the court was also required to instruct on voluntary manslaughter.” The Defendant then reinforces his proposition by quoting State v. Abeyta: “[W]here sufficient evidence is presented to support a finding that a defendant acted in self-defense, a defendant is entitled to have the jury receive an instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense.” 1995-NMSC- 051, ¶ 47, 120 N.M. 233 , 901 P.2d 164 , abrogated on other grounds by State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 3

2026Pointing to the district court’s grant of the self-defense instruction, Defendant asserts that as a consequence “the court was also required to instruct on voluntary manslaughter.” The Defendant then reinforces his proposition by quoting State v. Abeyta: “[W]here sufficient evidence is presented to support a finding that a defendant acted in self-defense, a defendant is entitled to have the jury receive an instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense.” 1995-NMSC- 051, ¶ 47, 120 N.M. 233 , 901 P.2d 164 , abrogated on other grounds by State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 3

2026Defendant further argues under State v. Reynolds, 1982-NMSC-091 , ¶¶ 11-12, 98 N.M. 527 , 650 P.2d 811 , that the jury’s guilty verdict as to first-degree willful and deliberate murder “does not mean [the jury] might not have reached voluntary manslaughter if correctly instructed.” See id. ¶ 11 (holding denial of a voluntary manslaughter instruction was error, the court rejected the argument “that a finding by the jury that the defendant acted with deliberate intention precludes any possibility that they could have found sufficient provocation”). {18} Critically, however, Defendant’s arguments

2026Defendant further argues under State v. Reynolds, 1982-NMSC-091 , ¶¶ 11-12, 98 N.M. 527 , 650 P.2d 811 , that the jury’s guilty verdict as to first-degree willful and deliberate murder “does not mean [the jury] might not have reached voluntary manslaughter if correctly instructed.” See id. ¶ 11 (holding denial of a voluntary manslaughter instruction was error, the court rejected the argument “that a finding by the jury that the defendant acted with deliberate intention precludes any possibility that they could have found sufficient provocation”). {18} Critically, however, Defendant’s arguments

2026Because the self-defense instruction was unwarranted, it cannot entitle Defendant to a voluntary manslaughter instruction under the reasoning in Abeyta. {19} In State v. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011 , 147 N.M. 747 , 228 P.3d 1167 , we relevantly explained the distinction between accidental killings, which may be excused, and intentional killings, which may be justified.

2026Because the self-defense instruction was unwarranted, it cannot entitle Defendant to a voluntary manslaughter instruction under the reasoning in Abeyta. {19} In State v. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011 , 147 N.M. 747 , 228 P.3d 1167 , we relevantly explained the distinction between accidental killings, which may be excused, and intentional killings, which may be justified.

2026“When evidence at trial supports the giving of an instruction on a defendant’s theory of the case, failure to so instruct is reversible error.” State v. Henley, 2010-NMSC-039 , ¶ 25, 148 N.M. 359 , 237 P.3d 103 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Ward, ___-NMSC-___, ¶ 45, ___P.3d___ (S-1- SC-40503, Mar. 16, 2026). {15} Regarding preservation of the issue, Defendant argues and the record reflects that the trial court during the initial jury instruction conference understood he requested a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

2026“When evidence at trial supports the giving of an instruction on a defendant’s theory of the case, failure to so instruct is reversible error.” State v. Henley, 2010-NMSC-039 , ¶ 25, 148 N.M. 359 , 237 P.3d 103 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Ward, ___-NMSC-___, ¶ 45, ___P.3d___ (S-1- SC-40503, Mar. 16, 2026). {15} Regarding preservation of the issue, Defendant argues and the record reflects that the trial court during the initial jury instruction conference understood he requested a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

2026Citing State v. Zamarripa, 2009-NMSC-001 , 145 N.M. 402 , 199 P.3d 846 , Defendant suggests the trial court’s improper statement of the law—indicating that Defendant had to request either a self-defense instruction or a voluntary manslaughter instruction—resulted in defense counsel selecting the former in the best interests of Defendant without a legitimate waiver of the latter.

2026Citing State v. Zamarripa, 2009-NMSC-001 , 145 N.M. 402 , 199 P.3d 846 , Defendant suggests the trial court’s improper statement of the law—indicating that Defendant had to request either a self-defense instruction or a voluntary manslaughter instruction—resulted in defense counsel selecting the former in the best interests of Defendant without a legitimate waiver of the latter.

2026There Was Not Evidence to Support a Jury Instruction on Voluntary Manslaughter {23} Relying on State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982, and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1, Defendant argues he was entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction because there was evidence that he acted in the heat of passion following sufficient provocation when Victim allegedly woke Defendant up by verbally confronting him.

2026There Was Not Evidence to Support a Jury Instruction on Voluntary Manslaughter {23} Relying on State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982, and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1, Defendant argues he was entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction because there was evidence that he acted in the heat of passion following sufficient provocation when Victim allegedly woke Defendant up by verbally confronting him.

2026Pointing to the district court’s grant of the self-defense instruction, Defendant asserts that as a consequence “the court was also required to instruct on voluntary manslaughter.” The Defendant then reinforces his proposition by quoting State v. Abeyta: “[W]here sufficient evidence is presented to support a finding that a defendant acted in self-defense, a defendant is entitled to have the jury receive an instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense.” 1995-NMSC- 051, ¶ 47, 120 N.M. 233 , 901 P.2d 164 , abrogated on other grounds by State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 3

2026Pointing to the district court’s grant of the self-defense instruction, Defendant asserts that as a consequence “the court was also required to instruct on voluntary manslaughter.” The Defendant then reinforces his proposition by quoting State v. Abeyta: “[W]here sufficient evidence is presented to support a finding that a defendant acted in self-defense, a defendant is entitled to have the jury receive an instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense.” 1995-NMSC- 051, ¶ 47, 120 N.M. 233 , 901 P.2d 164 , abrogated on other grounds by State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 3

2026There Was Not Evidence to Support a Jury Instruction on Voluntary Manslaughter {23} Relying on State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982, and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1, Defendant argues he was entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction because there was evidence that he acted in the heat of passion following sufficient provocation when Victim allegedly woke Defendant up by verbally confronting him.

2026There Was Not Evidence to Support a Jury Instruction on Voluntary Manslaughter {23} Relying on State v. Franklin, 1967-NMSC-151, 78 N.M. 127, 428 P.2d 982, and State v. Boyer, 1985-NMCA-029, 103 N.M. 655, 712 P.2d 1, Defendant argues he was entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction because there was evidence that he acted in the heat of passion following sufficient provocation when Victim allegedly woke Defendant up by verbally confronting him.

2026As the State cites, the evidence necessary for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel “is not usually sufficiently developed in the original trial record,” and therefore such a claim “should normally be addressed in a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding, which may call for a new evidentiary hearing to develop facts beyond the record.” State v. Crocco, 2014-NMSC-016, ¶ 13 , 327 P.3d 1068 .