347 P.3d 284
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Guadalupe Murillo, a Wal‑Mart employee, used a switchblade to stab two customers (Carlos Lopez and Celestino Owen) after a prior animosity and an in‑store altercation.
- Murillo was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and unlawfully possessing a switchblade (NMSA 1978, § 30‑7‑8).
- On appeal Murillo raised five issues: three facial constitutional challenges to § 30‑7‑8 (Article II, § 6 right to bear arms; substantive due process; equal protection), and two trial‑procedure claims (jury instructions and limits on his opening statement).
- The court exercised discretion to review the unpreserved facial constitutional claims under the general public interest exception.
- The Court applied intermediate scrutiny to the Second Amendment / Article II, § 6 challenge, held the switchblade ban substantially related to an important public‑safety interest, and upheld § 30‑7‑8.
- The court rejected Murillo’s jury‑instruction claim (switchblade is a per se deadly weapon under § 30‑1‑12(B)) and found no abuse of discretion in limiting parts of his opening statement; it declined to develop Murillo’s undeveloped equal‑protection argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Murillo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality under Article II, § 6 (right to bear arms) | § 30‑7‑8 advances important public‑safety interests (preventing surprise, concealable weapons) and is substantially related to that interest | § 30‑7‑8 infringes the right to keep and bear arms; switchblades are ‘‘arms’’ and the ban is facially unconstitutional | Upheld. Court applied intermediate scrutiny, found burden minimal and statute substantially related to important government purpose; statute constitutional |
| Substantive due process (Federal) | State: statute is justified by public‑safety rationale; not a due‑process violation | Murillo: statute infringes fundamental Second Amendment rights and thus violates substantive due process | Denied. Court treated this as parallel to the Article II, § 6 claim, applied intermediate scrutiny, and upheld the statute |
| Equal protection (State & Federal) | State: classification justified by legitimate legislative choice (argued implicitly) | Murillo: § 30‑7‑8 treats similarly situated groups differently (argument undeveloped) | Not considered on merits. Court refused to construct undeveloped argument and declined review |
| Jury instructions re: deadly weapon element | State: switchblade is per se a deadly weapon under statute so no additional jury finding required | Murillo: requested instruction that knife is a deadly weapon only if it could cause death or great bodily harm (UJI 14‑322 alternative) | Denied. Switchblade is statutorily a deadly weapon (§ 30‑1‑12(B)); requested alternative instruction was inapplicable |
| Opening statement limitation | State: trial court acted within discretion to limit prejudicial or irrelevant opening material | Murillo: prevented from referencing self‑defense and excluded evidence about prior incident/photographs in opening | Affirmed. No record support for the broad claim that all self‑defense references were barred; court did properly limit reference to a particular incident and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes an individual right to possess firearms for self‑defense; rejects rational‑basis for Second Amendment scrutiny)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via Fourteenth Amendment)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (substantive‑due‑process framework: government action that "shocks the conscience" is impermissible)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (supports categorical limits and applies intermediate scrutiny to Second Amendment challenges)
- Marzzarella v. United States, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (applies intermediate scrutiny to firearm regulation)
- United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010) (applies intermediate scrutiny to Second Amendment challenge)
- Precise Imp. Corp. v. Kelly, 378 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir. 1967) (describing switchblades as weapons associated with criminal use)
- Crowley Cutlery Co. v. United States, 849 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1988) (noting switchblades’ concealability and suitability for criminal use)