364 P.3d 306
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Altercation at a house party ends with Sanchez fatally shot by Anderson after a confrontation and mutual drawing of firearms.
- Sanchez’s girlfriend brandishes Sanchez’s handgun, creating a belief Anderson’s gun was obtained by force.
- Detective Maltby prepared diagrams of the residence; objection argued they were prejudicial and not to scale.
- District court granted self-defense and stand-your-ground jury instructions but omitted UJI 14-5190 (stand-your-ground definition).
- Jury asked during deliberations whether stand-your-ground exists; instruction was not provided, and written instructions lacked UJI 14-5190.
- Conviction for second-degree murder reversed and remanded for new trial; diagrams found admissible with limiting instruction; district court not found to abuse discretion in other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of UJI 14-5190 was fundamental error | State argues omission not fatal if element was covered | Anderson contends error was minor or non-structural | Yes; omission caused fundamental error by misdirecting jury on self-defense |
| Whether the diagrams were improperly admitted under Rule 11-403 | State asserts diagrams probative and non-prejudicial | Anderson claims potential to mislead about space | No reversible abuse; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice given witness testimony and scale captioning |
| Whether the district court properly refused modified UJI 14-250 | State: uniform instructions must be used without modification | Anderson urged modification to reflect self-defense nuances | District court properly refused modification; instructions sufficient |
| Whether waiver barred fundamental error review | State: fundamental rights can be protected despite waiver | Anderson argued waiver precluded review | Waiver did not bar fundamental error review; reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Barber v. State, 135 N.M. 621 (N.M. 2004) (fundamental error review; need for complete self-defense instruction when warranted)
- Benally, 131 N.M. 258 (N.M. 2001) (standard for preserved vs. fundamental error in instructions)
- Cunningham, 128 N.M. 711 (N.M. 2000) (fundamental error when error goes to foundation of rights)
- Mascareñas, 129 N.M. 230 (N.M. 2000) (definition of reckless disregard treated as an element instruction)
- Navarez, 148 N.M. 820 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (jury confusion established by a trial court’s response to a question)
- Laney, 134 N.M. 648 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (review of instructions as a whole; potential for confusion abolished by error-free language)
- Watchman, 138 N.M. 488 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (uniform jury instructions must be used without substantive modification)