COURT News:
SANTA FE — The state Supreme Court today affirmed a Pecos man’s convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder and other charges stemming from a shooting after an argument during a night of drinking.
The Court unanimously rejected Mark Valencia’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his requested jury instruction on whether his level of intoxication prevented him from forming the required criminal intent for willful and deliberate first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder.
The justices concluded that Valencia’s proposed jury instruction misstated the law and would have misled the jury about what was necessary for a conviction.
The requested jury instruction “omitted the requirement that the jury find – beyond a reasonable doubt – that he was not intoxicated to the extent of being incapable of forming an intent to take away the life of another,” the Court explained.
“His proposed instruction would have required the jury to acquit on both first-degree murder charges simply if they had a reasonable doubt whether he was sober,” the Court wrote in an opinion by Justice C. Shannon Bacon. “This would have constituted a blatantly erroneous legal standard, and the judge was therefore under no obligation to give Defendant’s proposed instruction even though it was supported by sufficient evidence.
The Court reached a similar conclusion about Valencia’s proposed jury instruction on the attempted murder charge against him.
Valencia was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murdering his girlfriend, Eva Aragon, and another man, Steven Singer. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison for the attempted murder of Aragon’s uncle, David Sturgeon.
The four people spent the night drinking at Sturgeon’s home in Pecos in 2021. An argument broke out after Singer, a friend of Sturgeon, gave Valencia a haircut that he did not like. Valencia went outside, retrieved a gun from his vehicle and fired multiple shots at the front door, which had been locked. After entering the house, Valencia shot Singer in the head and then shot Aragon between the eyes. He pointed the gun at Sturgeon, who hid while Valencia repeatedly fired the gun while walking around the house saying he was going to shoot Sturgeon.
Sturgeon called 911, and state police found Valencia slumped over the steering wheel in Sturgeon’s van and not moving. He smelled of alcohol, was not wearing shoes and had an unlit cigar or cigarette in his hand.
In today’s opinion, the Court clarified the amount of evidence that a defendant must present to be entitled to a voluntary intoxication jury instruction.
Defendants “must point to evidence in the trial record sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about whether they were – as a result of their intoxicated state – capable of forming the requisite intent,” the Court explained. “This is synonymous with saying the evidence must be sufficient for a reasonable juror to find in favor of a defendant’s theory of the case.”
To be entitled to a voluntary intoxication jury instruction under the law, a defendant must present evidence that he or she had used intoxicating alcohol or drugs, was actually intoxicated and the level of intoxication impaired their ability to form the necessary intent to commit the charged crime. A court, in deciding whether the jury instruction is merited, must determine whether such evidence exists. It is not the role of the trial court to weigh the degree to which the evidence proves or disapproves a fact, the justices explained.
The Court affirmed Valencia’s convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, attempt to commit first-degree murder, shooting at a dwelling or occupied building, and negligent use of a deadly weapon.
The Court found no double jeopardy violations in Valencia’s convictions for aggravated assault and attempted murder. The aggravated assault occurred when Valencia pointed a loaded gun at Sturgeon, and that was a “sufficiently distinct” action from the attempt to commit murder when he fired bullets in the walls while searching the house for Sturgeon, the Court reasoned.
The justices also rejected arguments that Valencia’s convictions for shooting at the house and negligent use of a firearm violated constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Valencia negligently used a firearm because he was carrying his gun while intoxicated, but that conduct “occurred distinctly” both before and after he shot at the house with three people inside, the Court stated.
The justices returned the case to the district court to amend a one-year sentence imposed for Valencia’s negligent use of a deadly weapon conviction. The offense is a petty misdemeanor, which state law limits to a sentence of no more than six months imprisonment.