State v. Flores
147 N.M. 542, 2010 NMSC 002, 226 P.3d 641 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Deliberate intent for first-degree murder can be inferred from the totality of circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's actions before, during, and after the killing which demonstrate a methodical plan, such as stalking the victim, lying in wait, and subsequent attempts to create a false alibi.
Facts:
- Joseph Flores and Vernon Green were lovers living together in Las Vegas, Nevada, until Green ended the relationship approximately two weeks before his death.
- After the breakup, Green moved to Carlsbad, New Mexico, to live with his parents.
- Flores made numerous phone calls to Green's ex-wife, falsely claiming that Green intended to kidnap, rape, and kill their young son.
- Flores obtained a $1200 salary advance and a rental car from his employer by falsely claiming his son had died and he needed to travel to New Mexico for the burial.
- Several days before the killing, Green was in a car with his mother in Carlsbad when Flores pulled up alongside them; Green identified Flores to his mother and appeared agitated and scared.
- Flores was seen loitering for days at the Carlsbad Quality Inn where Green was attending a class, inquiring about the class schedule and when it would recess for lunch.
- On September 24, 2004, during the class lunch break, Flores was seen arguing loudly with Green in a hotel alcove.
- Immediately after witnesses heard cries of pain, they saw Flores calmly walk away from the alcove with blood on his hands, shirt, and a Phillips screwdriver, leaving Green fatally stabbed 21 times.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Flores was charged with first-degree murder and tried in a New Mexico state trial court.
- A jury found Flores guilty of willful, deliberate, and premeditated first-degree murder.
- Flores, as the appellant, filed a direct appeal of his conviction and life sentence to the Supreme Court of New Mexico, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence exist to support a finding of deliberate intent for a first-degree murder conviction when the defendant, after being rejected by the victim, methodically travels to the victim's new location, stalks him for days, inquires about his schedule, lies in wait, and stabs him multiple times?
Opinions:
Majority - Daniels, Justice
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to support the finding of deliberate intent. A rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the requisite deliberate intent for first-degree murder based on the compelling circumstantial evidence of his actions before, during, and after the crime. The court distinguished this case from others involving impulsive violence, reasoning that Flores's conduct demonstrated a methodical, two-week plan to exact revenge. This evidence included being embittered by the breakup, making malicious accusations against Green, methodically planning his pursuit, stalking Green in Carlsbad, learning his schedule, lying in wait with a weapon, inflicting an excessive number of wounds, calmly leaving the scene, and attempting to create a false alibi. The court held that such a prolonged course of conduct and post-crime efforts to deceive police provided ample proof of 'careful thought' and 'weighing of the consideration,' satisfying the element of deliberation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that deliberate intent for first-degree murder can be proven entirely through circumstantial evidence. It provides a clear factual template for prosecutors to distinguish premeditated murder from impulsive acts by highlighting that a prolonged, methodical course of conduct—such as planning, stalking, and lying in wait—is powerful evidence of careful thought. The case solidifies the relevance of a defendant's pre- and post-crime behavior in establishing the requisite mental state for first-degree murder. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to argue a lack of deliberation when there is a clear pattern of calculated actions leading up to the killing.
