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 Defendant Mark Hice, who was involved in two separate shooting incidents resulting from a dispute with a former friend, Louie Martinez, over a loan and a gun used as collateral. The dispute escalated with threats made via social media and phone calls. In the first incident, while believing he was being followed and threatened by Martinez and his friends, Hice fired shots that inadvertently involved the Abeyta family, who were unharmed. In the second incident, Hice and his friends mistakenly believed Martinez was in a Subaru they fired at, resulting in one teenager's death and injuries to three others. Hice acquired firearms for protection leading up to the incidents (paras 2-10).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying several of his requested jury instructions, contended that the New Mexico Constitution requires juror unanimity for the specific theory of first-degree murder upon which a defendant is convicted, and claimed that his four convictions for shooting at or from a motor vehicle violate double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court correctly denied Defendant's requested jury instructions, argued that juror unanimity for a specific theory of first-degree murder is not required under the New Mexico Constitution, and maintained that the convictions for shooting at or from a motor vehicle do not violate double jeopardy (paras 13, 17, 36).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant's requested jury instructions.
• Whether the New Mexico Constitution requires juror unanimity for the specific theory of first-degree murder upon which a defendant is convicted.
• Whether Defendant's four convictions for shooting at or from a motor vehicle violate double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decisions on all counts against Defendant Mark Hice (para 1).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Chief Justice Bacon, held that:
  The district court did not err in denying Defendant's requested jury instructions because the evidence did not support the theories of provocation or mistake-of-fact as argued by Defendant (paras 13-19).
  Juror unanimity for a specific theory of first-degree murder is not required under the New Mexico Constitution, aligning with precedent and rejecting Defendant's argument to overturn State v. Salazar (paras 25-35).
  Defendant's convictions for shooting at or from a motor vehicle without bodily injury do not violate double jeopardy principles, as the statute's language suggests the Legislature intended for punishment per person whose safety was recklessly disregarded (paras 36-43).