State v. Lymon, 488 P.3d 610

Background

In 2015 APD Officer Daniel Webster stopped Davon Lymon and Savannah Garcia after suspecting Lymon rode a stolen motorcycle; Webster approached with his weapon drawn, later holstered it, and while attempting handcuffs Lymon shot Webster six times and fled.
Lymon was tried on first-degree murder and multiple related counts; jury returned inconsistent preliminary verdict forms for Count 1 (first-degree murder), later deliberated and returned a final guilty verdict; the court polled the jury and jurors confirmed the verdicts.
After trial, convictions for shooting from a vehicle and one tampering count were vacated; remaining convictions were affirmed by the district court and appealed.
On appeal Lymon challenged (1) the trial court’s communications with the jury as coercive, (2) denial of a self-defense instruction based on alleged excessive force by the officer, (3) several evidentiary rulings (impeachment with an 18-year-old fraud conviction; admission of a prior stop; exclusion of cross-examining a witness about an alleged prior false kidnapping claim), and (4) the trial court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing and new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.
The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed: the court held the trial court properly clarified an ambiguous preliminary verdict without coercion, correctly denied the self-defense instruction, did not abuse discretion on evidentiary rulings, and acted properly regarding juror-misconduct allegations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lymon)	Held
Whether trial court coerced jury by querying ambiguous preliminary verdicts instead of immediately polling	Court may clarify ambiguous preliminary verdicts and its neutral notes were proper to resolve inconsistency	Notes and repeated send-backs coerced jurors and impermissibly pressured them to change votes	No coercion; court had duty to clarify inconsistent preliminary verdicts and its neutral questions did not improperly influence jurors
Whether defendant was entitled to a self-defense instruction (police excessive force)	Officer’s drawn weapon and foot-on-foot control did not amount to excessive force; no reasonable minds could find excessive force	Officer’s conduct (drawing weapon, foot on foot) justified instruction for self-defense against excessive police force	Denial correct: evidence insufficient for reasonable juror to find officer used excessive force (holstered weapon, context justified draw)
Admissibility of impeachment and other prior-act evidence (18‑yr-old fraud conviction; prior stop footage; exclusion of cross-exam on alleged false kidnapping)	18‑yr fraud conviction admissible for impeachment because probative of truthfulness; prior-stop evidence relevant to intent/self-defense; exclusion of remote, low-probative prior false-kidnapping claim proper	Admission was unduly prejudicial given forgery charge and remoteness; prior-act evidence was impermissible propensity evidence; cross‑examination about kidnapping was proper impeachment	No abuse of discretion: court excluded a duplicative forgery conviction but properly admitted fraud conviction with limiting instruction, properly admitted limited prior-stop evidence, and permissibly barred cross-exam into remote, low‑probative alleged kidnapping under Rules 11‑403/11‑608(B)
Whether trial court should have held additional evidentiary hearing/new trial for alleged juror misconduct (livestream/extraneous information)	Trial court properly held an initial hearing, found extraneous material reached only an alternate juror and was duplicative, and denied further hearing/new trial	Alleged livestream access and jurors’ phone use created reasonable probability extraneous information affected deliberations and warranted further inquiry	No abuse of discretion: defendant failed to show extraneous material actually reached deliberating jurors or reasonably probably affected verdict; trial court’s hearing and denial of new trial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Aguilar, 451 P.3d 550 (N.M. 2019) (preliminary verdicts are not final; court may clarify ambiguous jury responses)
State v. Phillips, 396 P.3d 153 (N.M. 2017) (trial court duties to resolve ambiguity in jury responses)
State v. Apodaca, 940 P.2d 478 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (court not compelled to accept preliminary verdict; Rule on polling and clarity)
State v. McCarter, 604 P.2d 1242 (N.M. 1980) (trial communications must not coerce jurors; judge may communicate neutrally)
United States v. Shippley, 690 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2012) (example of non-coercive remedial jury instruction when addressing inconsistent verdicts)
State v. Ellis, 186 P.3d 245 (N.M. 2008) (self-defense against police requires some evidence officer used excessive force; reasonableness standard)
State v. Holloway, 740 P.2d 711 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (duty to resolve jury uncertainty before final verdict)
Kilgore v. Fuji Heavy Indus. Ltd., 240 P.3d 648 (N.M. 2010) (standard for proving juror misconduct and when evidentiary hearing is required)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective reasonableness test for police use of force)