self-defense instruction in New Mexico

2026State v. Rudolfo, 2008-NMSC-036 , 12 ¶ 27, 144 N.M. 305 , 187 P.3d 170 . 2 “When considering a defendant’s requested 2 We note that this Court in Rudolfo expressly abandoned the “‘slight evidence’” standard for jury instructions pursuant to affirmative defenses, clarifying that “[f]or a defendant to be entitled to a self-defense instruction, for example, there need be only enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a juror about whether the defendant lawfully acted in self-defense.” 2008-NMSC-036, ¶ 27 .

2026State v. Rudolfo, 2008-NMSC-036 , 12 ¶ 27, 144 N.M. 305 , 187 P.3d 170 . 2 “When considering a defendant’s requested 2 We note that this Court in Rudolfo expressly abandoned the “‘slight evidence’” standard for jury instructions pursuant to affirmative defenses, clarifying that “[f]or a defendant to be entitled to a self-defense instruction, for example, there need be only enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a juror about whether the defendant lawfully acted in self-defense.” 2008-NMSC-036, ¶ 27 .

2024But see Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 14-22 (declining to reverse the defendant’s conviction under fundamental error because although the jury instruction on deliberate- intent first-degree murder improperly omitted the element of unlawfulness, this omission was corrected by a proper self-defense instruction that pertained to the deliberate-intent first-degree murder charge).

2023See 2000-NMSC-009, ¶¶ 14-22 (declining to reverse the defendant’s conviction under fundamental error because although the jury instruction on deliberate-intent first-degree murder improperly omitted the element of unlawfulness, this omission was corrected by a proper self-defense instruction that pertained to the deliberate-intent first-degree murder charge).

2017Because Defendant voluntarily entered 12 into the situation, he cannot avail himself of the law of self-defense. 13 {18} Additionally, it was not reasonable for Defendant to have used deadly force. 14 See State v. Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 23-24 , 142 N.M. 191 , 164 P.3d 72 (holding 15 that a self-defense instruction is not appropriate where the victim threatened the 16 defendant with a pipe and the defendant responded by repeatedly striking the victim 17 with the pipe even after the victim lost consciousness); Gaines, 2001-NMSC-036 , ¶ 18 10 (concluding that a self-defense instruction was no

2017See State v. Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 23-24 , 142 N.M. 191 , 164 P.3d 72 (holding that a self-defense instruction is not appropriate where the victim threatened the defendant with a pipe and the defendant responded by repeatedly striking the victim with the pipe even after the victim lost consciousness); Gaines, 2001-NMSC-036, ¶ 10 (concluding that a self-defense instruction was not warranted where the victim allegedly had a knife but dropped it “well before the altercation” with the defendant); State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 24-26 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (holding that a self-defens

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

2025There was insufficient evidence to instruct the jury on self-defense or defense of another {16} A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction when there is sufficient evidence “to allow reasonable minds to differ” as to each of the following elements: (1) “the defendant was put in fear by an apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm,” (2) “the killing resulted from that fear,” and (3) “the defendant acted as a reasonable person would act under those circumstances.” State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC- 003, ¶ 23, 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (internal quotation marks and citation omi

2025There was insufficient evidence to instruct the jury on self-defense or defense of another {16} A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction when there is sufficient evidence “to allow reasonable minds to differ” as to each of the following elements: (1) “the defendant was put in fear by an apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm,” (2) “the killing resulted from that fear,” and (3) “the defendant acted as a reasonable person would act under those circumstances.” State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC- 003, ¶ 23, 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (internal quotation marks and citation omi

2025See State v. Rudolfo, 2008-NMSC-036, ¶ 20 , 144 N.M. 305 , 187 P.3d 170 (stating that self-defense is recognized as a justification for homicide based on “the reasonable belief in the necessity for the use of deadly force to repel an attack in order to save oneself or another from death or great bodily harm.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also State v. Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶ 22 , 142 N.M. 191 , 164 P.3d 72 (“[I]f the defendant’s reaction is unreasonable, a self-defense instruction is not appropriate.”).

2025See State v. Rudolfo, 2008-NMSC-036, ¶ 20 , 144 N.M. 305 , 187 P.3d 170 (stating that self-defense is recognized as a justification for homicide based on “the reasonable belief in the necessity for the use of deadly force to repel an attack in order to save oneself or another from death or great bodily harm.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also State v. Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶ 22 , 142 N.M. 191 , 164 P.3d 72 (“[I]f the defendant’s reaction is unreasonable, a self-defense instruction is not appropriate.”).

2023There was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great 4 bodily harm to [Appellant] as a result of Kristen Rodriguez arming 5 herself with a handgun and handing such gun to [Victim] who was 6 heading toward the front door as [Appellant] was right outside such 7 front door and [Appellant] heard what he believed to be a shot fired. 8 The State argued under State v. Lucero, 1998-NMSC-044 , 126 N.M. 552 , 972 P.2d 9 1143 , that Appellant’s actions—his threatening text, breaching the front window, 10 and refusing to leave after being told to do so—established that he was the first 11 aggress

2023There was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great 4 bodily harm to [Appellant] as a result of Kristen Rodriguez arming 5 herself with a handgun and handing such gun to [Victim] who was 6 heading toward the front door as [Appellant] was right outside such 7 front door and [Appellant] heard what he believed to be a shot fired. 8 The State argued under State v. Lucero, 1998-NMSC-044 , 126 N.M. 552 , 972 P.2d 9 1143 , that Appellant’s actions—his threatening text, breaching the front window, 10 and refusing to leave after being told to do so—established that he was the first 11 aggress

2025Even assuming, without deciding, that Defendant’s jury instruction claim was properly preserved, for the reasons that follow, we conclude the district court did not err in refusing to give a self-defense instruction in this case. {5} “The propriety of denying a jury instruction is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.” State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 13 , 278 P.3d 1031 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 5 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 .

2025See Gammill, 1985-NMCA-014 , ¶¶ 17- 18 (holding that the evidence did not support the requested self-defense instruction because the victim did not touch the defendant, was not armed, and the defendant did not testify that he was in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm); State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 12, 15 , 278 P.3d 1031 (holding that the evidence that the defendant did not intend to kill the victim, brought two knives in case she needed to defend herself, and stated that after the altercation began she was afraid the victim would strangle or hit her was insufficient to meet the

2024In State v. Heisler, the Court held that the defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction simply because there was an “appreciable disparity in size.” 1954-NMSC-032 , ¶ 12, 58 N.M. 446 , 272 P.2d 660 .

2024In State v. Heisler, the Court held that the defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction simply because there was an “appreciable disparity in size.” 1954-NMSC-032 , ¶ 12, 58 N.M. 446 , 272 P.2d 660 .

2023See Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 60 (stating that a defendant must have been placed in fear and acted out of that fear to qualify for a self-defense instruction).

2021Accordingly, a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if the evidence demonstrates that “(1) the defendant was put in fear by an apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm, (2) the killing resulted from that fear, and (3) the defendant acted reasonably when he or she killed.” Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 60 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {16} In determining whether Valencia was in fear and whether that fear was reasonable, we focus on the final encounter between Victim and Valencia wherein Valencia approached Victim with a shovel and in response, Victim g

2021Cf. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶¶ 19-20 (basing a finding of fundamental error in part on the Court’s conclusion that a reasonable jury “would [not] graft the correct burden of proof” from a self-defense instruction addressing aggravated battery and voluntary manslaughter onto a separate elements instruction addressing second-degree murder). 14 statutory definition of “deadly weapon” lists a number of specific kinds of knives, it does not list the generic “knife.” Accordingly, our Supreme Court has held that a “knife” is not a per se deadly weapon.

2021See State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 . {15} A defendant is only entitled to a self-defense instruction if the evidence demonstrates that “(1) the defendant was put in fear by an apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm, (2) the killing resulted from that fear, and (3) the defendant acted reasonably when he or she killed.” State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 60 , 279 P.3d 747 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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

2021For a self-defense instruction, a defendant must present evidence of “‘fear by an apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm, that the killing resulted from that fear, and that the defendant acted as a reasonable person would act under those circumstances.’” Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 (quoting State v. Branchal, 1984- NMCA-063, ¶ 5, 101 N.M. 498 , 684 P.2d 1163 ).

2021For a self-defense instruction, a defendant must present evidence of “‘fear by an apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm, that the killing resulted from that fear, and that the defendant acted as a reasonable person would act under those circumstances.’” Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 (quoting State v. Branchal, 1984- NMCA-063, ¶ 5, 101 N.M. 498 , 684 P.2d 1163 ).

2018“If supported by the 9 evidence, the defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction in which the jury 10 considers threatened harm from all assailants, not just the one against whom the 11 defendant may have retaliated.” State v. Cooper, 1999-NMCA-159, ¶ 11 , 128 N.M. 12 428, 993 P.2d 745 . 13 {6} Defendant asserts that the State’s witnesses established sufficient evidence from 14 which the jury could infer that Defendant acted in self-defense. [MIO 3] According 15 to Defendant, there was evidence presented that Defendant and his girlfriend were 16 sitting in Defendant’s truck when Mario

2018“If supported by the 9 evidence, the defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction in which the jury 10 considers threatened harm from all assailants, not just the one against whom the 11 defendant may have retaliated.” State v. Cooper, 1999-NMCA-159, ¶ 11 , 128 N.M. 12 428, 993 P.2d 745 . 13 {6} Defendant asserts that the State’s witnesses established sufficient evidence from 14 which the jury could infer that Defendant acted in self-defense. [MIO 3] According 15 to Defendant, there was evidence presented that Defendant and his girlfriend were 16 sitting in Defendant’s truck when Mario

2007See Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 26 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (holding that the trial court did not err in refusing a self-defense instruction where the defendant's "repetitive, violent actions suggest[ed] conduct fueled by hatred or by rage or other strong emotion, but not by fear"); State v. Martinez, 95 N.M. 421, 423 , 622 P.2d 1041 , *79 1043 (1981) (finding insufficient evidence of self-defense where the defendant shot the victim, wrapped a cord around the victim's neck, and beat the victim with such force to crush his skull). {24} To say that Petitioner was entitled to a self-defense inst

2007See Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 26 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (holding that the trial court did not err in refusing a self-defense instruction where the defendant's "repetitive, violent actions suggest[ed] conduct fueled by hatred or by rage or other strong emotion, but not by fear"); State v. Martinez, 95 N.M. 421, 423 , 622 P.2d 1041 , *79 1043 (1981) (finding insufficient evidence of self-defense where the defendant shot the victim, wrapped a cord around the victim's neck, and beat the victim with such force to crush his skull). {24} To say that Petitioner was entitled to a self-defense inst

2024See State v. Ellis, 2008-NMSC-032, ¶ 15 , 144 N.M. 253 , 186 P.3d 245 (stating that a defendant has a qualified right to a self-defense instruction against a police officer if the officer used excessive force).

2024In other words, if the district court “concludes that reasonable minds could not find that the officer used excessive force, the matter ends there, and the [district] court should not instruct the jury on the elements of self-defense.” Id. {6} Defendant argues that he was entitled to a self-defense instruction because he presented evidence that the officer in this case acted with excessive force.

2021This Court reviews a defendant’s requested instruction “in the light most favorable to the giving of the self-defense or defense of another instruction.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 2 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2021This Court reviews a defendant’s requested instruction “in the light most favorable to the giving of the self-defense or defense of another instruction.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 2 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2025“An instruction on self- defense requires evidence that (1) the defendant was put in fear by an apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm, (2) the killing resulted from that fear, and (3) the defendant acted reasonably when he or she killed,” with the first two requirements being subjective, focusing on the defendant’s perception at the time of the incident, and the third being objective, focusing “on the hypothetical behavior of a reasonable person acting under the same circumstances.” State v. Baroz, 2017-NMSC-030, ¶ 14 , 404 P.3d 769 (internal quotation marks and citations omi

2024Baroz, 2017-NMSC-030, ¶ 15 (alterations, omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 14 (“For a court to issue a self-defense instruction, there need be only enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a juror about whether the defendant lawfully acted in self-defense.

2014By contrast, the third requirement 19 is objective in that it focuses on the hypothetical behavior of a reasonable 20 person acting under the same circumstances as the defendant. 21 State v. Coffin, 1999-NMSC-038, ¶ 15 , 128 N.M. 192 , 991 P.2d 477 . 3 1 {4} For a self-defense instruction to be given, the evidence must be sufficient so 2 that reasonable minds could differ on all elements of the offense.

2014By contrast, the third requirement 19 is objective in that it focuses on the hypothetical behavior of a reasonable 20 person acting under the same circumstances as the defendant. 21 State v. Coffin, 1999-NMSC-038, ¶ 15 , 128 N.M. 192 , 991 P.2d 477 . 3 1 {4} For a self-defense instruction to be given, the evidence must be sufficient so 2 that reasonable minds could differ on all elements of the offense.

2024See State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 5, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 . {9} Defendant maintains that his trial testimony provided sufficient evidence to support giving a self-defense instruction.

2024See State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 5, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 . {9} Defendant maintains that his trial testimony provided sufficient evidence to support giving a self-defense instruction.

2014See Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶ 11 . 18 {32} In Armijo, we had to decide “whether it is fundamental error for judges not to 19 follow the use note for the self-defense instruction when no one alerts them to the 16 1 need to insert the sentence about the defendant not acting in self[-]defense in the 2 elements instruction and when an otherwise correct self-defense instruction is given.” 3 Id. ¶ 24.

2007See Griffin, 2002-NMCA-051, ¶ 20 , 132 N.M. 195 , 46 P.3d 102 (“The only way to correctly instruct the jury in this case is to comply with the applicable Use Note and include as an essential element the requirement that Defendant did not act in self-defense.”); State v. Foxen, 2001-NMCA-061, ¶10 , 130 N.M. 670 , 29 P.3d 1071 (holding that the failure to include a reference to self-defense in the elements instruction, as well as the failure to include the appropriate burden of proof in the self-defense instruction, constituted fundamental error); Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶ 12 , 127 N.M. 594 , 985

2025For a self-defense instruction, “there must be evidence that the defendant was put in fear by an apparent danger of immediate bodily harm, that [the defendant’s] actions resulted from that fear, and that the defendant acted as a reasonable person would act under those circumstances.” State v. Denzel B., 2008- NMCA-118, ¶ 6, 144 N.M. 746 , 192 P.3d 260 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2025For a self-defense instruction, “there must be evidence that the defendant was put in fear by an apparent danger of immediate bodily harm, that [the defendant’s] actions resulted from that fear, and that the defendant acted as a reasonable person would act under those circumstances.” State v. Denzel B., 2008- NMCA-118, ¶ 6, 144 N.M. 746 , 192 P.3d 260 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2022A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense instruction “when the officer is using necessary force to effect an arrest.” State v. Kraul, 1977-NMCA-032 , ¶ 29, 90 N.M. 314 , 563 P.2d 108 .

2022A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense instruction “when the officer is using necessary force to effect an arrest.” State v. Kraul, 1977-NMCA-032 , ¶ 29, 90 N.M. 314 , 563 P.2d 108 .

2024“Failure to instruct on self-defense when there is a sufficient quantum of proof to warrant it is reversible error.” Gaines, 2001-NMSC-036, ¶ 4 . {6} Defendant argues that the evidence was sufficient to warrant a self-defense instruction based on the totality of suspicious events that led him to believe Victim wanted to take his life.

2017The district court denied the self-defense instruction, reasoning that “seeing 7 1 someone approaching, even in an angry manner, with an arm behind the back is 2 insufficient as a matter of law to justify deadly force.” Defendant preserved this issue 3 by requesting the self-defense instruction and presenting his argument concerning 4 that instruction in the district court. 5 {13} “The propriety of denying a jury instruction is a mixed question of law and fact 6 that we review de novo.” State v. Gaines, 2001-NMSC-036, ¶ 4 , 131 N.M. 347 , 36 7 P.3d 438 .

2025As we noted in the proposed disposition, in order to support a self-defense instruction, there must be evidence of: “(1) an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to the defendant, (2) the defendant was in fact put in fear by the apparent danger, and (3) a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have reacted similarly.” State v. Emmons, 2007-NMCA-082, ¶ 12 , 141 N.M. 875 , 161 P.3d 920 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025As we noted in the proposed disposition, in order to support a self-defense instruction, there must be evidence of: “(1) an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to the defendant, (2) the defendant was in fact put in fear by the apparent danger, and (3) a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have reacted similarly.” State v. Emmons, 2007-NMCA-082, ¶ 12 , 141 N.M. 875 , 161 P.3d 920 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020Defendant contends there was sufficient evidence to support a self-defense instruction because the evidence presented “an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to [Defendant] as a result of [Victim] drawing his gun,” citing UJI 14-5183 NMRA and State v. Baroz, 2017- NMSC-030, 404 P.3d 769 . {26} Under a fundamental error standard, Defendant seeks to establish that the district court’s mistake in not promulgating an instruction on self-defense to the jury amounts to a “mistake in the process [that] makes [his] conviction fundamentally unfair notwithstanding the apparent g

2011Fundamental Error in the Self-Defense and Defense of Another Jury Instructions {20} In reviewing the self-defense and defense of another jury instructions for fundamental error, we first determine “whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction^].” Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 19 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 .

2025Even assuming, without deciding, that Defendant’s jury instruction claim was properly preserved, for the reasons that follow, we conclude the district court did not err in refusing to give a self-defense instruction in this case. {5} “The propriety of denying a jury instruction is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.” State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 13 , 278 P.3d 1031 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 5 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 .

2025Even assuming, without deciding, that Defendant’s jury instruction claim was properly preserved, for the reasons that follow, we conclude the district court did not err in refusing to give a self-defense instruction in this case. {5} “The propriety of denying a jury instruction is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.” State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 13 , 278 P.3d 1031 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 5 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 .

2022See Brown, 1996-NMSC-073, ¶ 34 . {8} Further, Defendant waived her right to object to the self-defense instruction by inviting the decision from the district court.

2021A self-defense instruction here requires excessive force {30} “In New Mexico, a person has a limited right of self-defense against a police officer using excessive force.” Id. ¶ 7 (citing State v. Kraul, 1977-NMCA-032 , ¶ 29, 90 N.M. 314 , 563 P.2d 108 ).