EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) — The New Mexico State Supreme Court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction of a Deming man in the fatal shooting of his son-in-law back in 2022.
Ezequiel Ricoy had appealed his conviction arising from the fatal shooting of his stepson, Brandon Kern.
The fatal shooting had arisen over a dispute over the two working together to renovate a trailer.
The defendant had also stated that the victim and his siblings were “useless” and that the defendant didn’t like how they treated his wife.
The defendant had argued that the Supreme Court must vacate his conviction because there was insufficient evidence of deliberate intent, that the district court failed to instruct the jury on self-defense, voluntary manslaughter and defense of habitation and he received ineffective counsel.
The state Supreme Court ruled on Monday, Nov. 10, that his murder conviction be upheld.
The Supreme Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.
“Based on the substantial evidence presented in this case showing that the defendant deliberately intended to shoot the victim, we hold that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty of first-degree willful and deliberate murder,” the State Supreme Court wrote.
As for self-defense claims by the defendant, the Supreme Court said that evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that the defendant subjectively feared death or great bodily harm or that the killing resulted from that fear.
There was also insufficient evidence for a jury to find that the defendant acted as a “reasonable person” would have acted under the circumstances.
The Supreme Court wrote that the defendant “initiated the deadly confrontation and used deadly force when he faced no threat of death or great bodily harm.”
The defendant also maintained that the district court had committed a reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter because the victim had provoked the defendant by “charging at him” after shots had been fired and because they had previously been in an argument.
To convict on voluntary manslaughter, there must be “evidence that there was a sudden quarrel or heat of passion at the time of the commission of the crime, to show that the killing was the result of provocation sufficient to negate the presumption of malice.”
The State Supreme Court also ruled that there was no evidence to support the defendant’s view that the victim had intended to enter his home and commit a violent felony there.
“We hold that the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense, voluntary manslaughter or defense of habitation,” the state Supreme Court wrote.
The defendant also argued that his counsel was ineffective because they failed to request an instruction on defense of habitation.
Since the district court did not make a mistake when it did not instruct the jury on defense of habitation, the attorney did not fail “to exercise the skill of a reasonably competent attorney” concerning that issue, the Supreme Court wrote.
For all those reasons, the state Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s murder conviction.
Read: Read More