State v. Trujillo, S-1-SC-40328

Fifteen-year-old Judah Trujillo met sixty-year-old Samuel Cordero at Ragle Park for oral sex, and Judah shot Samuel once in the back of the head, killing him. 1
A jury convicted Judah of willful and deliberate first-degree murder and tampering with evidence for taking Samuel's phone after the killing. 2
Judah appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of deliberate intent and error in the jury's motive instruction, and also sought presentence confinement credit. 3
The State's proof largely showed what happened after the shooting, including phone data, the recovered body, ballistics, and Judah's later disposal of Samuel's phone. 4
Judah testified he armed himself for the Grindr meetup, felt threatened when Samuel became aggressive, and fired one shot over his shoulder in self-defense. 5
The jury was instructed on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter, but no self-defense instruction was given. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of deliberate intent evidence 7	State said Judah's gun, conduct, and aftermath showed deliberation.	Judah said the evidence showed only an impulsive or defensive shooting.	Evidence insufficient; first-degree murder reversed. 8
Motive instruction and fundamental error 9	Judah said the court violated the UJI use note by instructing on motive.	State said any error was not fundamentally unfair.	Instruction was erroneous, but not fundamental error. 10
Disposition after reversal 11	Judah sought a new trial on the tampering charge if murder was reversed.	State sought affirmance of tampering and entry of a lesser homicide conviction.	Court remanded for second-degree murder and affirmed tampering. 12

State v. Revels, 572 P.3d 974 (N.M. 2025) (interests of justice govern remand versus retrial after reversal 13)
State v. Haynie, 867 P.2d 416 (N.M. 1994) (no retrial is needed when lesser offense elements were necessarily proven 14)
State v. Barber, 92 P.3d 633 (N.M. 2004) (unpreserved instructional error reviewed for fundamental error 15)
Delfino v. Griffo, 257 P.3d 917 (N.M. 2011) (use notes are binding on district courts 16)
State v. Mascareñas, 4 P.3d 1221 (N.M. 2000) (fundamental error requires shocking the conscience or fundamental unfairness 17)
State v. Adonis, 194 P.3d 717 (N.M. 2008) (deliberate intent requires proof the defendant actually deliberated 18)
State v. Flores, 226 P.3d 641 (N.M. 2010) (deliberation may be inferred from extensive corroborating circumstances 19)
State v. Slade, 331 P.3d 930 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (bringing a gun or hiding evidence is insufficient without proof of actual deliberation 20)
State v. Astorga, 343 P.3d 1245 (N.M. 2015) (statements can support deliberation when accompanied by additional intent evidence 21)
State v. Guerra, 284 P.3d 1076 (N.M. 2012) (overt expressions of remorse-lacking celebration can support deliberate intent 22)
State v. Duran, 140 P.3d 515 (N.M. 2006) (prolonged struggle and incriminating statements supported deliberate intent 23)
State v. Lucero, 541 P.2d 430 (N.M. 1975) (bringing the murder weapon may support deliberate intent with additional corroboration 24)