State v. Deleon, 34,808

Background

Defendant Enrique Deleon got into a fight with Joe Valero at a backyard cookout, was knocked unconscious, went home, retrieved firearms, returned, and shot Joe multiple times and Guadalupe once; both victims died.
Two young children (a 4‑month‑old and a 5‑year‑old) had been placed in a vehicle nearby during the shooting; a shell casing was later found in that vehicle but no damage was observed and the casing did not match Defendant’s gun.
Defendant had a .175 BAC when tested at the hospital, a three‑cm laceration on his head, and reportedly told his girlfriend to punch him after the shooting to make it look like self‑defense.
At trial Defendant was convicted of two counts of willful and deliberate first‑degree murder and two counts of child abuse (endangerment); he directly appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
He raised four issues on appeal: denial of a voluntary‑intoxication instruction, denial of self‑defense instructions, exclusion of evidence about Joe’s reputation for violence/being a violent drunk, and sufficiency of the evidence for Guadalupe’s murder and for child endangerment of the two children.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Deleon)	Held
1. Denial of voluntary‑intoxication instruction	No reversible error; evidence did not require instruction and defense theory was self‑defense, not intoxication.	BAC .175 and alleged intoxication entitled him to instruction that intoxication could negate specific intent to deliberate.	Denial affirmed — insufficient evidence that intoxication prevented formation of deliberate intent (no observed signs, coherent actions before/after shooting).
2. Denial of self‑defense and related instructions	Defendant armed himself and returned to the scene after being knocked out, so he was the aggressor; no reasonable basis for self‑defense instruction.	He feared immediate deadly harm because Joe lunged with something shiny and had been violent when drunk; jury should receive self‑defense instructions.	Denial affirmed — Defendant provoked/renewed the encounter by retrieving a gun and returning; his use of deadly force was unreasonable.
3. Exclusion of evidence that Joe had reputation as a violent drunk	Exclusion proper or harmless; admission of specific‑instance evidence was improper and any reputation evidence would not be prejudicial given other record evidence.	Excluding testimony about Joe’s reputation and officer Loomis’s encounters deprived him of critical support for self‑defense.	No abuse of discretion — specific instances were inadmissible without foundation; Loomis reputation/opinion testimony was not preserved by offer of proof and any exclusion was not prejudicial.
4. Sufficiency of evidence for Guadalupe murder and child endangerment	Deliberate intent to kill may be inferred from circumstances (swinging gun, post‑shooting behavior); children were endangered because Defendant shot toward backyard/house and casing was found in vehicle.	Guadalupe’s shooting was accidental (no deliberate intent to kill her); Defendant lacked knowledge children were in vehicle so child‑endangerment convictions unsupported.	Mixed: Murder convictions affirmed — circumstantial evidence supported deliberation. Child‑endangerment convictions reversed — State did not prove Defendant knew or should have known children were in the vehicle or that vehicle was in the zone of danger.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Salazar, 123 N.M. 778, 945 P.2d 996 (1997) (jury‑instruction rulings present mixed question reviewed de novo).
State v. Privett, 104 N.M. 79, 717 P.2d 55 (1986) (defendant must show intoxicant affected mental state at or near time of crime to get intoxication instruction).
State v. Arrendondo, 278 P.3d 517 (2012) (criminal‑negligence child‑endangerment requires defendant knew or should have known child was in zone of danger).
State v. Lucero, 126 N.M. 552, 972 P.2d 1143 (1998) (self‑defense unavailable where defendant instigated or renewed deadly encounter).
State v. Chavez, 99 N.M. 609, 661 P.2d 887 (1983) (provoking an encounter precludes self‑defense).
State v. Armendariz, 140 N.M. 182, 141 P.3d 749 (2006) (limits on use of victim’s prior violent acts; specific instances generally not admissible to show first aggressor).
State v. Duran, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515 (2006) (deliberate intent may be inferred from circumstances surrounding the killing).