331 P.3d 930
N.M. Ct. App.2014Background
- Cameron Slade was convicted by a jury of attempted first-degree murder and sentenced to nine years (plus a firearm enhancement) for shooting Brian Alexander at a party that devolved into a multi-person fight and gunfire; one person (Granville) was killed and Alexander was seriously wounded.
- Defendant arrived at the hall carrying a .38 revolver (lawful concealed-weapons training), Royal (friend) carried a .40 semiautomatic (Defendant’s gun); a melee ensued, multiple guns were fired, and several different casings/bullets were recovered.
- Eyewitness testimony about whether Slade shot at Alexander was mixed and inconsistent; some witnesses did not see him shoot, others reported admissions by Slade that he had shot Alexander once, but physical evidence did not conclusively tie Slade’s recovered gun to Alexander’s wounds.
- After the shooting, Slade fled, hid a .40 pistol (later found removed from its barrel at another location), gave statements denying presence, instructed an associate to stay silent, and later went to police with Thomas.
- At trial the State chose to charge and instruct only on attempted first-degree murder (willful, deliberate, premeditated intent), not on attempted second-degree murder. The jury convicted; the Court of Appeals reversed for insufficient evidence of deliberate intent and vacated sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence that Slade shot Alexander at all? | Physical evidence and some witness statements (including alleged admissions) support that Slade fired shots that hit Alexander. | Eyewitness accounts were inconsistent; ballistics did not conclusively link Slade’s gun to Alexander; admissions were unreliable. | Court did not decide this discrete point because resolution of intent made it unnecessary; primary reversal based on intent insufficiency. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of "deliberate, premeditated" intent for attempted first-degree murder? | State argued motive, arrival armed, post-shooting concealment/flight, and multiple wounds supported inference of deliberation. | Slade argued evidence required speculation and did not prove deliberation—only impulse or consciousness of guilt. | Held: Evidence was insufficient to prove willful, deliberate, premeditated intent beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction reversed. |
| Could the appellate court remand for conviction on attempted second-degree murder (lesser-included)? | State asked for remand and resentencing for attempted second-degree murder (knowingly creating strong probability of death). | Slade argued double jeopardy and that State’s choice to not instruct on lesser offense bars retrial/remand. | Held: Direct remand was inappropriate because State did not request instruction; retrial or later prosecution for attempted second-degree murder is barred by double jeopardy. |
| Does Double Jeopardy permit retrial on the lesser-included offense after reversal for insufficient evidence on greater offense when lesser was not submitted to jury? | State contended evidence could support lesser and thus dismissal is improper. | Slade argued tactical choice not to submit lesser bars subsequent prosecution. | Held: Double jeopardy bars retrial for attempted second-degree murder where conviction of greater was reversed for insufficiency and the State chose an all-or-nothing trial strategy. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tafoya, 285 P.3d 604 (N.M. 2012) (distinguishes deliberate intent from impulsive acts; short deliberation may suffice only with additional evidence of deliberation)
- State v. Adonis, 194 P.3d 717 (N.M. 2008) (multiple shots alone do not prove deliberation absent corroborating evidence of premeditation)
- State v. Villa, 98 P.3d 1017 (N.M. 2004) (court will not remand directly for conviction on lesser-included when the jury was not instructed on that offense)
- State v. Gonzales, 301 P.3d 380 (N.M. 2013) (double jeopardy protects against subsequent prosecution for lesser-included offenses when reversal rests on insufficiency of evidence for greater charge)
- State v. Dowling, 257 P.3d 930 (N.M. 2011) (standard of appellate review for sufficiency of evidence; deferential but courts must guard against convictions based on speculation)