self-defense jury instruction in New Mexico

2023See State v. Gaines, 2001-NMSC- 15 036, ¶ 5, 131 N.M. 347 , 36 P.3d 438 (“[W]hile an accused is entitled to instruction 16 on [the accused’s] theory of the case if evidence exists to support it, the court need 17 not instruct if there is absence of such evidence.” (emphasis, internal quotation 18 marks, and citation omitted)). 15 1 {27} We recognize that the defense-of-habitation doctrine was not raised below. 2 However, under the “right-for-any-reason” doctrine, the district court was 3 nonetheless correct to deny the instruction despite not weighing the defense-of- 4 habitation doctrine in i

2023See State v. Gaines, 2001-NMSC- 15 036, ¶ 5, 131 N.M. 347 , 36 P.3d 438 (“[W]hile an accused is entitled to instruction 16 on [the accused’s] theory of the case if evidence exists to support it, the court need 17 not instruct if there is absence of such evidence.” (emphasis, internal quotation 18 marks, and citation omitted)). 15 1 {27} We recognize that the defense-of-habitation doctrine was not raised below. 2 However, under the “right-for-any-reason” doctrine, the district court was 3 nonetheless correct to deny the instruction despite not weighing the defense-of- 4 habitation doctrine in i

2024See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 .

2024See State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 .

2023See State v. Vargas, 2008-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 5 143 N.M. 692 , 181 P.3d 684 (“Under the [right-for-any-reason] doctrine, we may 6 affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by the district court if 7 those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were 8 raised and considered below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 9 Affirming the district court’s decision on defense-of-habitation grounds does not 10 require us to look beyond the factual allegations considered by the district court 11 when it considered the self-defense jury instructi

2023See State v. Vargas, 2008-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 5 143 N.M. 692 , 181 P.3d 684 (“Under the [right-for-any-reason] doctrine, we may 6 affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by the district court if 7 those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were 8 raised and considered below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 9 Affirming the district court’s decision on defense-of-habitation grounds does not 10 require us to look beyond the factual allegations considered by the district court 11 when it considered the self-defense jury instructi

2021See Rael, 1983-NMCA-081 , ¶¶ 15-16; see also Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011, ¶ 11 (noting that there needs to be evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense, for a defendant to be entitled to a self-defense jury instruction). {6} Turning to the remaining claims in Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, Defendant provides additional context and argument for his docketing statement’s first assertion that the district court erred in denying defense counsel’s in-trial request for a continuance [MIO 16-26], and simply reass

2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 ; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to cle

2021See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 41-42, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 , superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA- 044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 ; State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081 , ¶¶ 15-16, 100 N.M. 193 , 668 P.2d 309 .

2021See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 41-42, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 , superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA- 044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 ; State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081 , ¶¶ 15-16, 100 N.M. 193 , 668 P.2d 309 .

2021See State v. Adamo, 2018-NMCA-013, ¶ 21 , 409 P.3d 1002 . {3} “A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction unless it is justified by sufficient evidence on every element of self-defense.” State v. Rudolfo, 2008-NMSC- 036, ¶ 17, 144 N.M. 305 , 187 P.3d 170 .

2021See State v. Adamo, 2018-NMCA-013, ¶ 21 , 409 P.3d 1002 . {3} “A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction unless it is justified by sufficient evidence on every element of self-defense.” State v. Rudolfo, 2008-NMSC- 036, ¶ 17, 144 N.M. 305 , 187 P.3d 170 .

2021See State v. Adamo, 2018-NMCA-013, ¶ 21 , 409 P.3d 1002 . {3} “A defendant is not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction unless it is justified by sufficient evidence on every element of self-defense.” State v. Rudolfo, 2008-NMSC- 036, ¶ 17, 144 N.M. 305 , 187 P.3d 170 .

2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 ; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to cle

2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 ; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to cle

2021See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 41-42, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 , superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA- 044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 ; State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081 , ¶¶ 15-16, 100 N.M. 193 , 668 P.2d 309 .

2021See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 41-42, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 , superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA- 044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 ; State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081 , ¶¶ 15-16, 100 N.M. 193 , 668 P.2d 309 .

2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 ; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to cle

2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 ; see also Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to cle

2014Moreover, Defendant was nonetheless not prevented 16 from presenting his version of the events—namely, that his actions in the second 17 incident were premised on his belief that “one or both of the other two men might also 18 physically attack him now that their friend [Victim] had fallen,” and that his actions 19 in the second incident were thus necessary to make sure that Victim was no longer a 10 1 threat for purposes of joining in an attack along with his friends. [MIO 26] See 2 generally Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 29 (concluding that the omission of one of 3 the assailants in the self-de

2014See State v. Sommer, 1994-NMCA-070 , ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 58 , 878 P.2d 1007 17 (denying a motion to amend the docketing statement based upon a determination that 18 the argument sought to be raised was not viable). 9 1 {13} Defendant additionally seeks to amend his docketing statement to argue that 2 fundamental error arose because the self-defense jury instruction [RP 135] did not 3 instruct the jury on multiple assailant principles, but instead gave only a simple self- 4 defense instruction. [MIO 24; RP 135] See generally State v. Cooper, 1999-NMCA- 5 159, ¶ 11, 128 N.M. 428 , 993 P.2d 745 (provi

2014See State v. Sommer, 1994-NMCA-070 , ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 58 , 878 P.2d 1007 17 (denying a motion to amend the docketing statement based upon a determination that 18 the argument sought to be raised was not viable). 9 1 {13} Defendant additionally seeks to amend his docketing statement to argue that 2 fundamental error arose because the self-defense jury instruction [RP 135] did not 3 instruct the jury on multiple assailant principles, but instead gave only a simple self- 4 defense instruction. [MIO 24; RP 135] See generally State v. Cooper, 1999-NMCA- 5 159, ¶ 11, 128 N.M. 428 , 993 P.2d 745 (provi

2012In contrast, in State v. Branchal, 101 N.M. 498, 503-04 , 684 P.2d 1163, 1168-69 (Ct. App. 1984), the Court of Appeals held that a self-defense jury instruction was warranted when the defendant testified that she shot the victim once because she was afraid he would shoot her or one of her children.

2012In contrast, in State v. Branchal, 101 N.M. 498, 503-04 , 684 P.2d 1163, 1168-69 (Ct. App. 1984), the Court of Appeals held that a self-defense jury instruction was warranted when the defendant testified that she shot the victim once because she was afraid he would shoot her or one of her children.

2008See State v. Ungarten, 115 N.M. 607, 610-11 , 856 P.2d 569, 572-73 (Ct.App.1993) (stating that a defendant was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when after being struck with a log, the defendant brandished a knife). {8} Our Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he evidence of an appearance of immediate danger would support an inference that [the d]efendant was put in fear." State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 25 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 .

2008See State v. Ungarten, 115 N.M. 607, 610-11 , 856 P.2d 569, 572-73 (Ct.App.1993) (stating that a defendant was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when after being struck with a log, the defendant brandished a knife). {8} Our Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he evidence of an appearance of immediate danger would support an inference that [the d]efendant was put in fear." State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 25 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 .

2008See State v. Ungarten, 115 N.M. 607, 610-11 , 856 P.2d 569, 572-73 (Ct.App.1993) (stating that a defendant was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when after being struck with a log, the defendant brandished a knife). {8} Our Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he evidence of an appearance of immediate danger would support an inference that [the d]efendant was put in fear." State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 25 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 .

2008See State v. Ungarten, 115 N.M. 607, 610-11 , 856 P.2d 569, 572-73 (Ct.App.1993) (stating that a defendant was entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when after being struck with a log, the defendant brandished a knife). {8} Our Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he evidence of an appearance of immediate danger would support an inference that [the d]efendant was put in fear." State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 25 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 .

2008The Hernandez Court observed that the committee commentary on UJI 14-5181 directed that "when the victim of the assault is a peace officer, the ordinary self-defense instruction must be modified" to conform to State v. Kraul, 90 N.M. 314, 318-19 , 563 P.2d 108, 112-13 (Ct.App.1977) (holding that a person has no right to defend himself from a police officer if the officer used necessary force to effect an arrest).

2008The Hernandez Court observed that the committee commentary on UJI 14-5181 directed that "when the victim of the assault is a peace officer, the ordinary self-defense instruction must be modified" to conform to State v. Kraul, 90 N.M. 314, 318-19 , 563 P.2d 108, 112-13 (Ct.App.1977) (holding that a person has no right to defend himself from a police officer if the officer used necessary force to effect an arrest).