State v. Dowling, 150 N.M. 110

Defendant, an 18-year-old, drove a pickup at high speed (est. 80 mph) on a four-lane road with a raised median, striking a jogger with the truck's exterior mirror.
He continued for about seven-tenths of a mile, weaving through traffic, including into oncoming lanes, and drove onto a sidewalk to strike and kill a second pedestrian.
He repeated dangerous maneuvers, crossing the median again and colliding with a boulder on the median; afterward he fled the scene and was later apprehended about a mile away.
The jury convicted him of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, first-degree depraved mind murder, leaving the scene of an accident, reckless driving, and escape-related offenses.
On appeal, Defendant challenged the depraved mind murder conviction, arguing the jury instruction failed to require more than mere recklessness and that the evidence did not prove a depraved mind.
The New Mexico Supreme Court held the jury instruction misstated the law by omitting the term exceedingly/extremely reckless, reversed the depraved mind murder conviction, and remanded for a new trial on that charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the jury instruction correct on depraved mind murder?	Dowling argues instruction allowed mere recklessness.	Dowling contends instruction omitted required ‘extremely reckless’ standard.	Instruction misstated law; reversible error; remand.
Is there sufficient evidence to sustain depraved mind murder after remand?	Prosecution contends substantial evidence supports subjective knowledge and multiplicity.	Dowling asserts evidence does not prove the required mens rea.	Sufficiency supports retrial; no double jeopardy bar.
Does the evidence show the act endangered more than one person?	Jolting jogger and second pedestrian show multiple victims under multiplicity rule.	Two collisions should be treated as separate acts or not satisfy multiplicity.	Evidence supports more-than-one-person endangerment; multiplicity satisfied.

State v. Reed, 138 N.M. 365, 120 P.3d 447 (2005-NMSC-031) (requires outrageous or extremely reckless conduct for depraved mind murder)
State v. Brown, 122 N.M. 724, 931 P.2d 69 (1996-NMSC-073) (depraved mind requires heightened recklessness and malice)
State v. Omar-Muhammad, 102 N.M. 274, 694 P.2d 922 (1985) (reckless driving alone insufficient for depraved mind murder)
State v. DeSantos, 89 N.M. 458, 553 P.2d 1265 (1976) (multiplicity requirement for depraved mind murder: act endangers more than one person)
State v. Hernandez, 117 N.M. 497, 873 P.2d 243 (1994) (defining when a depraved mind act is completed)
State v. Reed, 2005-NMSC-031 (NMSC) (see above entry (duplicate to emphasize relevance))