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

• The Defendant, Tammy Lynn Sanchez Tafoya, was involved in an altercation with her former boyfriend, Keith Miller, where both parties wielded knives. This confrontation resulted in the fatal stabbing of Miller by Tafoya.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Valencia County, James L. Sanchez, District Judge, July 23, 2018: Defendant was convicted of dueling and second-degree murder following a three-day jury trial.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the jury instruction on dueling misstated the law, leading to fundamental error. Contended that this misstatement, coupled with deficient instruction on sufficient provocation, confused the jury regarding the charges of murder, self-defense, and sufficient provocation.
• Appellee (State): Conceded that the jury instruction on dueling was erroneous and that there was insufficient evidence to support the dueling conviction, recommending that the conviction be vacated.

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury instruction on dueling misstated the law, constituting fundamental error.
• Whether the dueling instruction, in conjunction with the instruction on sufficient provocation, confused the jury and affected the deliberations on the murder charge.

Disposition

• The conviction for dueling is reversed and vacated.
• The conviction for second-degree murder is affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Julie J. Vargas concurring, found that:
  The jury instruction on dueling misstated the law by not including the requirement that a duel arise from a precedent agreement and be governed by formal rules, constituting fundamental error (paras 5-6).
  There was insufficient evidence of dueling as there was no evidence at trial of either a preexisting agreement to fight or any agreed-upon formal rules governing the battle between Defendant and Miller (para 6).
  The incorrect dueling instruction did not taint the murder instructions or confuse the jury. The instructions for self-defense and murder were correctly given, and the jury was properly instructed on the definitions of great bodily harm, sufficient provocation, and self-defense (paras 7-11).
  The jury's request for further elaboration on "sufficient provocation" did not indicate confusion that would affect the foundation of the murder case or the Defendant's rights. The district court's direction to follow the given instruction was deemed appropriate, and there was no evidence that the jury misapplied the legal definition of sufficient provocation in its murder deliberations (paras 12-14).