Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 N.M. 1

569 P.2d 411

State v. Aubrey

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided September 29, 1977

New Mexico Supreme Court · decided 1977-09-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A. Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.” 1 It follows logically and obviously from the definition that, in order to convict of voluntary manslaughter, the jury must have evidence that there was a sudden quarrel or heat of passion at the time of the commission of the crime (in order, under the common law theory, to show that the killing was the result of provocation sufficient to negate the presumption of malice * * *.).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Robinson

Relies on Smith v. State · State v. Lucero · State v. Hartley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-09-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2010 · most notably Beck v. Alabama (1980), Tapia v. Tansy (1991)

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 14 states

48019771980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

PAYNE, Justice.

¶2 The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder contrary to § 40A-2-1, N.M. S.A. 1953 (Repl.1972) and sentenced to life in prison.

¶3 In the early morning hours of May 15, 1976, Edna Sharp was killed in her home in Artesia, New Mexico. The defendant was seen at the victim’s home that morning, and witnesses provided testimony from which the jury could conclude that defendant beat the victim outside of her house, dragged her into the house, and then cut her throat.

¶4 The State’s medical examiner testified that there had been multiple blows to the chest of the victim which, in his opinion, were inflicted prior to her throat having been cut. The doctor further testified that death was caused by severance of the trachea and great vessels to the neck.

¶5 On appeal defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to show a deliberate intention to take the life of the victim, and therefore a first-degree murder instruction should not have been given. Whether the defendant had a deliberate intent to take the life of the victim is a question for the jury to resolve under proper instruction. State v. Lucero, 88 N.M. 441, 541 P.2d 430 (1975).

¶6 The jury was instructed in accordance with N.M.U.J.I. Crim. 2.00 [2nd Repl. Vol. 6, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1975) at 295], which states in part as follows:

A deliberate intention refers to the state of mind of the defendant. A deliberate intention may be inferred from all of the facts and circumstances of the killing. The word deliberate means arrived at or determined upon as a result of careful thought and the weighing of the consideration for and against the proposed course of action. A calculated judgment and decision may be arrived at in a short period of time. A mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even though it . includes an intent to kill, is not a deliberate intention to kill. To constitute a deliberate killing, the slayer must weigh and consider the question of killing and his reasons for and against such a choice.

¶7 The jury made the determination that the defendant’s actions showed the requisite deliberate intent to take the life of the victim. This Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, resolving all conflicts and indulging all permissible inferences in favor of the verdict. State v. Hartley, 90 N.M. 488, 565 P.2d 658 (1977); State v. Lucero, supra. The evidence supports the verdict.

¶8 The defendant further claims that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Before error can be predicated upon a failure to give an instruction on a lesser-included offense, there must be some evidence tending to establish the lesser offense. State v. Riggsbee, 85 N.M. 668, 515 P.2d 964 (1973). An instruction on voluntary manslaughter requires evidence that the killing resulted from a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. Smith v. State, 89 N.M. 770, 558 P.2d 39 (1976). No evidence was adduced at trial that would warrant the giving of a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

¶9 The decision of the trial court is affirmed.

¶10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

EASLEY and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.
/91/nm/1 · .json · Public domain