 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mantelli1/29/2002
deadly force was necessary to avert the threat. In order to be entitled to a jury instruction on justifiable homicide, Defendant was required to introduce or identify evidence that would support an argument that he reasonably and objectively believed that Montoya threatened him or Sgt. Marquez with serious physical harm or deadly force. If such evidence was present it was for the jury to decide if Defendant's use of deadly force was reasonable, considering the totality of the circumstances, and therefore constituted justifiable homicide. See Johnson, 1998-NMCA-019, 16.
In State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, 23, 128 N.M. 410, 993 P.2d 727, (quoting State v. Duarte, 121 N.M. 553, 556, 915 P.2d 309, 312 (Ct. App. 1996)), our Supreme Court clearly stated the standard to be applied by the trial court in ruling whether a request for an instruction on a claim of self-defense or defense of another should be granted. The Court stated:
" here self-defense is involved in a criminal case and there is any evidence, although slight, to establish [such defense], it is not only proper for the court, but its duty as well, to instruct the jury fully and clearly on all phases of the law on [that] issue." . . . However, we interpret this standard to require evidence that is "sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense." We affirm Branchal: a self defense instruction is required "whenever a defendant presents evidence sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense." Id. (citations omitted).
This is also the standard that should be applied when determining if the jury should be instructed on justifiable homicide by a police officer in accordance with Section 30-2-6. We also note that the identity of the party introducing the evidence, Defendant or the State, is irrelevant. Akin, 75 N.M. at 310, 404 P.2d at 136; Heisler, 58 N.M. at 454, 272 P.2d at 665. What is important is that the evidence was presented to the jury.
Defendant, a commissioned police officer on duty for the LVPD, was pursuing Montoya with Sgt. Marquez. The prosecution's case, as discussed above, was premised on the theory that Montoya was fleeing the scene in order to evade capture. In fact, the State's closing argument began with the assertion that " e do not shoot at a fleeing suspect" because to do so would be against the law. The State argued that if the physical evidence showed Montoya was not in the process of backing up the Toyota in the direction of Defendant and Sgt. Marquez at the time of the shooting, the jury must convict because under such a scenario Defendant could not have acted in self-defense or defense of another. The State characterized Defendant's theory of self-defense and defense of another as a "backward attack theory" which was not supported by the physical evidence that suggested that Montoya had cleared the rock wall and had begun to flee down Chavez Street.
Defendant testified that, upon arrival at the intersection of Valley and Chavez Streets, he positioned his police cruiser to execute a "felony stop." He also testified that the Toyota truck began to accelerate in reverse toward the officers and that there was an impact between the two vehicles.
Defendant testified that he was shocked and scared by the driver's actions. Defendant then testified that he drew his weapon, ran up to the side of the truck on the driver's side door, planning to pull the driver out of the truck. Sgt. Marquez instructed Defendant to "stop him, stop him" multiple times. Defendant testified that during this time he lost sight of Sgt. Marquez and that he thought Marquez had exited the police cruiser, had been knocked dow
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|