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 case involves the Defendant, Marshall Jackson, who was convicted following a bench trial for second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, tampering with evidence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The convictions stemmed from an incident on April 16, 2013, where the Defendant shot and killed the Victim, Shamika White. The Defendant pursued the Victim, shot her, and then attempted to hide the gun used in the crime in a woodpile. The Defendant argued that the shooting was accidental and contested the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence. Contended that the shooting was accidental, the testimony was inconsistent, he was not timely arraigned, and his sentence should not have been enhanced based on a prior conviction that was too old.
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Maintained that substantial evidence supported the verdicts of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for all charges against the Defendant. Asserted that the Defendant was timely arraigned and the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior conviction was justified.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and tampering with evidence.
• Whether the Defendant was timely arraigned.
• Whether the district court erred by enhancing the Defendant’s sentence based on a prior conviction that was too old.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence of the Defendant.

Reasons

• Per IVES, Judge (with J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge concurring):
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court found substantial evidence supported the verdicts. Witnesses testified to the Defendant's actions before and after the shooting, including pursuing the Victim and attempting to fire the gun at her head multiple times. The Court concluded that the Defendant acted with knowledge that his actions created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the Victim and that there was no sufficient provocation by the Victim to justify the Defendant's actions (paras 2-5).
  Aggravated Burglary: Testimony supported that the Defendant entered a dwelling without authorization, with intent to commit a felony therein, and was armed with a deadly weapon. The Court rejected the Defendant's claim of authorization to enter the dwelling and found sufficient evidence of his intent and possession of a deadly weapon (paras 7-9).
  Tampering With Evidence: The Court found sufficient evidence that the Defendant hid the gun in a woodpile with the intent to prevent his apprehension, prosecution, or conviction, based on eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence (para 10).
  Timing of Arraignment: The Court concluded the Defendant was timely arraigned within fifteen days of the filing of the criminal information, as required by Rule 5-303(A) NMRA (para 12).
  Habitual Offender Enhancement: The Court determined that the district court did not err in enhancing the Defendant's sentence based on a prior felony conviction that was within ten years of the instant conviction, according to the statutory requirements (para 13).