EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) — A former Las Cruces Police officer who was convicted in the shooting death of a shoplifting suspect earlier this year will be given a new trial.
That’s according to court documents obtained by KTSM.
Judge James B. Foy ruled Monday, Oct. 6, that Brad Lunsford should be given a new trial based on evidence of improper jury substitution.
Foy also wrote in his decision that the State’s case was weak against Lunsford and that a juror who should have deliberated but didn’t says they believed that Lunsford was not guilty.
In February of this year, Lunsford was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter in the 2022 shooting death of Presley Eze at a gas station in Las Cruces.
Lunsford has been out of jail since March while his defense team appealed.
“The court believes that the error prejudiced the defendant, affecting his substantial rights,” Foy wrote in his decision.
A juror who should have been seated had said they would have acquitted the defendant, but was replaced by an alternate juror, Foy wrote.
Foy wrote that he came to this decision with “great difficulty” but listened to evidence in at least 30 pre-trial and post-trial motions and listened to eight days of testimony from the trial.
“The Court is intimately familiar with the facts presented in this case by both the prosecution and the defense,” Foy wrote.
Back in August 2022, Lunsford and another officer responded to a shoplifting call involving Eze, who had allegedly stolen a beer at a gas station, according to previous reporting done by KTSM.
The responding officers were unable to verify Eze’s identity, and they forcibly removed him from a vehicle. During an ensuing scuffle, Eze and the other officer ended up on the ground, with Eze on top of the other officer.
Eze gained possession of the other officer’s Taser, although it was never cycled or deployed.
Lunsford then shot Eze in the back of his head, and the man died at the scene.
As for the incident that resulted in Eze’s death, Foy wrote that Eze had lied about his identity, and after three attempts, officers could not confirm the suspect’s identity.
“This court believes there was probable cause to arrest the decedent (Eze) for shoplifting and concealing his identity,” Foy wrote.
“The defendant (Lunsford) had every right to take the decedent into custody. Had that occurred without incident, we would not be here today,” Foy added.
Foy wrote that Eze had armed himself with a pocket knife while in the vehicle that he was eventually pulled out of.
The knife was retrieved, but the Eze continued to disobey lawful commands from Lunsford and the other officer, Foy wrote.
Police ended up having to force Eze out of the vehicle.
Eze “was a well-built male who, in essence, was able to hold off arrest,” Foy said. “In the opinion of this Court, the decedent (Eze) was besting both officers in the struggle.”
Foy also said it is “undisputed” that Eze had disarmed and controlled the other officer’s Taser.
At that point, Lunsford moved off Eze in their struggle and, while yelling, “Taser, Taser, Taser, Taser,” shot Eze in the head, killing him, Foy wrote.
Foy wrote that it was the Court’s opinion that once Eze had disarmed the other officer and controlled the other officer’s Taser, deadly force was justified.
“There is no doubt that a Taser is a deadly weapon in the hands of someone who is untrained,” Foy wrote.
The jury in the Lunsford case needed to determine whether his actions were reasonable under the circumstances, Foy wrote.
Foy also wrote that the Court believes that the State’s case on “proof beyond a reasonable doubt that force used was not objectively reasonable was weak,” Foy said.
One of the jurors who should have been able to deliberate except for the trial court’s error has said that they believed Lunsford was not guilty, Foy wrote.
“Since the Court believes that the State’s case regarding objective use of deadly force was weak and a juror who should have deliberated says they would have acquitted, the Court believes its error caused the defendant prejudice,” Foy wrote.
Read: Read More