State v. Ochoa
72 P.2d 609, 41 N.M. 589 (1937)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual can be convicted of murder as an aider and abettor if they share the principal's criminal intent, which can be formed at the scene of the crime. This shared intent can be inferred from the individual's actions, such as continuing to participate in a related assault against another officer after becoming aware that a member of their party is employing a deadly weapon against the police.
Facts:
- Following the arrest of Esiquel Navarro, a crowd of his supporters, including defendants Leandro Velarde, Manuel Avitia, and Juan Ochoa, gathered outside a justice of the peace office on April 4, 1935.
- When Sheriff M. R. Carmichael and his deputies attempted to escort Navarro back to jail through a rear alley, the crowd ran to the alley and surrounded them.
- Just before the officers emerged, Leandro Velarde raised his fist at a deputy and said, “Now you shall see what happens.”
- As the officers entered the alley, Juan Ochoa struck at Undersheriff Dee Roberts with a claw hammer.
- A deputy threw a tear gas bomb into the crowd, and almost simultaneously, shots were fired from the crowd.
- Sheriff Carmichael was struck by two bullets, fired by other members of the crowd, and died instantly.
- While the shooting was occurring and after Sheriff Carmichael was shot, defendants Manuel Avitia and Juan Ochoa were seen beating and kicking Deputy Hoy Boggess, who had been knocked unconscious.
- After the shooting ceased, Manuel Avitia was seen running away with a pistol in his hand.
Procedural Posture:
- Leandro Velarde, Manuel Avitia, Juan Ochoa, and seven others were charged by information with the murder of Sheriff Carmichael in the district court of McKinley county.
- On defendants' motion, the venue was changed to San Juan county.
- The defendants were tried jointly before a jury.
- The jury acquitted seven of the ten defendants.
- The jury found Leandro Velarde, Manuel Avitia, and Juan Ochoa (appellants) guilty of murder in the second degree.
- The three convicted defendants appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
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 person become liable as an aider and abettor to a murder if, upon becoming aware that a member of their party is using a deadly weapon, they actively participate in a related assault on another officer, thereby demonstrating a shared criminal intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Sadler, Justice.
Yes, a person who actively participates in a related assault after becoming aware of a deadly attack by a member of their party becomes liable as an aider and abettor. To be liable as an aider and abettor, one must share the criminal intent of the principal, creating a community of purpose. This intent does not need to be formed prior to the crime; it can be formed at the scene. For defendants Avitia and Ochoa, their continued, vicious assault on Deputy Boggess after the shooting of Sheriff Carmichael began allowed the jury to infer they had become apprised of the slayer's purpose and shared that intent. By engaging a deputy who would otherwise aid his chief, they aided and abetted the homicide. However, there was insufficient evidence to connect defendant Velarde to the unlawful design of the slayer. While his earlier actions were suspicious, there was no evidence he took any overt action to aid the shooters once the affray began.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the mens rea (criminal intent) required for aiding and abetting liability, particularly in chaotic, multi-person altercations. It establishes that the necessary 'community of purpose' can be formed instantaneously at the scene of the crime, without prior conspiracy. The court's key finding is that a defendant's knowledge of the principal's deadly intent can be inferred from their actions, and continuing to participate in the overall affray (e.g., by assaulting another officer) constitutes aiding and abetting. This precedent lowers the bar for prosecutors in group violence cases, as they do not need to prove a pre-planned agreement, only that a defendant intentionally assisted once the criminal purpose became clear.
