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, Eugene Gonzales, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after shooting Augustine Grano, a 61-year-old man dating his daughter, Selina. Selina, 19, had begun using methamphetamine and was in a relationship with Grano, who had a reputation as a drug dealer with a violent past. The Defendant disapproved of this relationship and had several confrontations with Grano, whom he perceived as threatening. Concerned for Selina's safety and believing Grano to be armed, the Defendant armed himself and went to Grano's residence, where he shot Grano during a confrontation. Grano was unarmed at the time of the shooting (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in denying jury instructions for self-defense and defense of another, based on his fear for his life and his daughter's safety due to Grano's violent reputation and perceived threats (paras 7, 9-11, 17-20).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant was not entitled to instructions on self-defense or defense of another, emphasizing the circumstances at the time of the shooting, where Grano was unarmed and the Defendant initiated the confrontation (paras 10-11, 18-21).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's requested jury instructions on self-defense and defense of another.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, denying the Defendant's requested jury instructions on self-defense and defense of another (para 23).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring):
  The Court held that the Defendant was not entitled to jury instructions on self-defense or defense of another. For self-defense, the Court found no sufficient evidence that the Defendant was in fear of apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm at the time of the shooting, nor that the shooting resulted from such fear. The Court emphasized the objective standard of a reasonable person's actions under the same circumstances, concluding that a reasonable person would not have acted as the Defendant did. Regarding defense of another, the Court found insufficient evidence that Selina was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm from Grano or that the Defendant believed as much at the time of the shooting. The Court concluded that the evidence did not support the Defendant's claims for either self-defense or defense of another, affirming the judgment and sentence (paras 7-22).