State v. Mantelli
2002 NMCA 033, 131 N.M. 692, 42 P.3d 272 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on justifiable homicide if there is any evidence, however slight, sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to whether the officer had probable cause to believe they or another were threatened with serious harm or deadly force, and the failure to give such an instruction is not cured by giving a general self-defense instruction.
Facts:
- Joseph Mantelli, a uniformed Las Vegas, New Mexico police officer, and his partner, Sgt. Steve Marquez, initiated a pursuit of a truck driven by Abelino Montoya, who had earlier eluded Sgt. Marquez.
- During the pursuit, Montoya ran through six or seven stop signs before driving into a dead-end street.
- At the dead-end, Montoya put his truck in reverse, and the truck collided with the police car.
- Mantelli exited his vehicle, ran to Montoya's truck, and broke the driver's side window with the butt of his handgun.
- As Montoya began to drive away from the officers and down the street, Mantelli fired three shots and Sgt. Marquez fired one shot into the truck.
- Montoya was struck in the back and the head, killing him.
- A passenger in Montoya's truck, Gabriel Rubio, testified that he did not believe they had put any officer's life in danger.
- Mantelli testified that he fired because he believed Montoya was using the truck as a deadly weapon to attack him and Sgt. Marquez.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of New Mexico filed a criminal complaint against Defendant Joseph Mantelli in the trial court.
- Mantelli filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss certain counts of the complaint, on which the trial court ruled.
- The trial court judge bound Mantelli over for trial on six offenses.
- Mantelli filed a peremptory notice to excuse the trial judge, which the court denied as untimely.
- Mantelli moved for a change of venue, which the trial court denied after a hearing.
- At the conclusion of the trial, Mantelli requested a jury instruction on justifiable homicide by a police officer, which the trial court refused to give.
- A jury convicted Mantelli of voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and shooting at a motor vehicle.
- Mantelli, as the Appellant, appealed his convictions to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
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 a trial court commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of justifiable homicide by a police officer when the officer presents evidence sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to whether he had probable cause to believe he or another was threatened with serious harm or deadly force by the suspect?
Opinions:
Majority - Bustamante, Judge
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on justifiable homicide by a police officer when the defendant has presented sufficient evidence to support the defense. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on their theory of the case if evidence exists that is sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense. Mantelli presented evidence through his own testimony, his partner's testimony, and an expert witness that he believed Montoya was using the truck as a deadly weapon, which constituted a threat of serious harm. This evidence was sufficient to warrant the specific justifiable homicide instruction under NMSA § 30-2-6. The general self-defense instruction provided to the jury was insufficient because the defense for a police officer is broader, does not require an 'immediate' threat of death, and applies to a wider range of law enforcement duties. The failure to give the proper instruction stripped Mantelli of a defense uniquely applicable to his status as a police officer and was not harmless error.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Wechsler, Judge
No, the error was harmless and does not require reversal. While there was sufficient evidence to entitle Mantelli to the justifiable homicide instruction, the failure to provide it did not prejudice him. The core of Mantelli's defense was that he acted in response to an immediate threat from Montoya's truck. This theory was fully covered by the self-defense and defense-of-another instructions the jury did receive. By rejecting those defenses, the jury necessarily rejected the factual basis that would have supported a justifiable homicide defense in this specific case. Although the justifiable homicide defense is theoretically broader, the broader aspects (e.g., preventing the escape of a felon who poses a non-immediate threat to the public) were not material to the facts and arguments presented at trial. Therefore, the outcome would not have changed, and the error was harmless.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the low evidentiary threshold required for a police officer defendant to receive a jury instruction on the specific defense of justifiable homicide in New Mexico. It solidifies the distinction between the broader legal privilege afforded to law enforcement officers and the narrower self-defense claim available to private citizens. The ruling establishes that a trial judge cannot withhold this specific instruction by making a preliminary assessment of the evidence's credibility or reasonableness; if any supporting evidence is presented, the question must go to the jury. This precedent strengthens the ability of officers to have their use of force judged by a standard that accounts for their professional duties, potentially affecting trial strategies and outcomes in future cases involving police use of deadly force.
