AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• On July 4, 2015, Defendant Daniel Aguilera was involved in a confrontation with two brothers, Andy and Luis Rojo, which resulted in Andy's death and Luis being injured. The incident began when Aguilera and a friend, Savalo Huerta, went to Huerta's house to drink beer but found none. Huerta then approached Luis's house to ask for beer, leading to an angry exchange with Andy. Later, Aguilera went to check on Huerta at Luis's house, where a confrontation ensued. Aguilera testified that he shot Andy, who he claimed was advancing towards him and reaching behind his back, and then shot Luis as he approached. Aguilera was charged with second-degree murder for Andy's death and aggravated battery for shooting Luis (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the convictions for second-degree murder and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon should be upheld.
• Defendant-Appellant (Daniel Aguilera): Contended that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of second-degree murder and on self-defense regarding the aggravated battery charge (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not providing a voluntary manslaughter instruction as a lesser-included offense of second-degree murder.
• Whether the district court erred in denying a self-defense jury instruction on the aggravated battery charge.

Disposition

• The conviction for second-degree murder was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
• The conviction for aggravated battery was affirmed (para 11).

Reasons

• B. Zamora, J., with Jennifer L. Attrep, J., and Megan P. Duffy, J., concurring:
  The court found that there was sufficient evidence of provocation to warrant a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter for the second-degree murder charge. This was based on the defendant's testimony that he acted out of fear for his safety when Andy advanced towards him, potentially reaching for a weapon. The court highlighted that the critical difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter is the existence of legally sufficient provocation, which was present in this case (paras 5-6).
  Regarding the aggravated battery charge, the court concluded that the evidence did not support a self-defense theory. It was determined that Luis's actions did not demonstrate an immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to Aguilera, which is necessary for a self-defense claim. The court noted that Aguilera never testified to believing Luis was armed or posed an immediate threat when he shot him (paras 7-10).