State v. Montoya
61 P.3d 793, 133 N.M. 84, 2003 NMSC 004 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court commits reversible error when it provides a verbal jury instruction that directly contradicts the written instruction on an essential element of the crime, such as causation, because it is impossible to determine whether the jury followed the correct or incorrect standard.
Facts:
- Defendant worked as a bodyguard for Michael Toney.
- The victim, Ty Lowery, was assisting Toney's former girlfriend, Sherrilyn Brown, in moving her belongings out of Toney's residence.
- Brown and Lowery returned to Toney's residence to retrieve Brown's forgotten purse.
- At the residence, Toney held a weapon to Lowery's head while another person, Claudia Moreno, stood nearby with a rifle.
- On Toney's orders, Defendant took the keys from Lowery's car.
- At Toney's command, Moreno shot Lowery, who was seriously wounded but still alive.
- Toney ordered Defendant to drive the wounded Lowery 'to the river and to leave him there.'
- Defendant drove the victim away from the direction of the hospital, repeatedly hit him to keep him down, and abandoned him and his car on a levee where the victim subsequently bled to death.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was indicted in a New Mexico trial court on several charges, including first-degree murder (both willful/deliberate and felony murder theories).
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Defendant of first-degree felony murder, kidnaping, conspiracy to commit kidnaping, false imprisonment, and conspiracy to commit false imprisonment.
- The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.
- Defendant filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of New Mexico, challenging only the felony murder conviction.
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 when it gives a supplemental verbal instruction stating that the state is not required to prove 'but for' causation for a felony murder conviction, when the standard written jury instruction requires such a finding?
Opinions:
Majority - Maes, Justice.
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by giving contradictory instructions on causation. The standard Uniform Jury Instruction (UJI) 14-251, with its language 'without which the death would not have occurred,' incorporates the essential requirement of factual, or 'but for,' causation. The trial judge's explicit verbal instruction that the State 'does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that but for the defendant’s actions Mr. Lowery would [not] have died' directly contradicted the written UJI. This created two complete and unambiguous but conflicting instructions, making it impossible to know which standard the jury applied. Such an error cannot be cured by simply re-reading the correct instruction, as the judge's other comments reinforced the prosecutor's incorrect interpretation and likely confused the jury. Although the conviction is reversed on these grounds, the court finds sufficient evidence to support a retrial, as medical testimony established that Defendant's act of driving the victim away from medical care 'guaranteed his death' and at least hastened it.
Dissenting - Serna, Chief Justice
No. The trial judge's instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury of the causation requirements and did not constitute reversible error. While the judge's verbal instruction that the State was not required to show 'but for' causation was improper, any potential ambiguity was cured when the judge re-read the entire correct written instruction and told the jury to consider the instructions as a whole. The judge's comment was an imperfect attempt to correct the defense counsel's legally incorrect argument that the State had to prove the victim would have survived but for Defendant's acts. The UJI's language about 'contributing' acts explains 'but for' causation in the context of multiple causes, and the evidence clearly showed Defendant's actions hastened the victim's death, which is sufficient to establish causation. Therefore, the conviction should be affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical importance of jury instruction precision and the non-negotiable role of 'but for' causation in New Mexico homicide law. It establishes a firm precedent that a trial judge's extemporaneous, contradictory instruction on an essential element of a crime is reversible error, even if the correct written instruction is also provided. The ruling serves as a strong caution to trial courts against deviating from or verbally undermining Uniform Jury Instructions. For future cases, it clarifies that while a defendant's action need not be the sole cause of death, it must be a 'but for' cause, meaning the death would not have occurred at the time and in the manner it did without the defendant's act.
