Press Release Administrative Office of the Courts
SANTA FE – The state Supreme Court today reversed a Pecos man’s convictions for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder during a shooting after a night of drinking.
The justices ordered Mark Valencia’s case back to the San Miguel County District Court for a new trial on the murder and attempted murder charges. The Court upheld Valencia’s convictions for negligent use of a weapon and shooting at a dwelling or occupied building.
The Court issued its unanimous decision after granting a motion by the defense to rehear the case and withdrawing an opinion from last year that had affirmed Valencia’s convictions on two counts of first-degree willful and deliberate murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder.
In today’s opinion written by Justice C. Shannon Bacon, the Court concluded that the trial court improperly denied Valencia’s request to instruct the jury to consider whether his degree of intoxication prevented him from forming the intent to deliberately take away the lives of others. The law requires that criminal intent for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder.
Valencia was sentenced in 2023 to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murdering his girlfriend, Eva Aragon, and another man, Steven Singer. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison for the attempted murder of Aragon’s uncle, David Sturgeon.
The four people spent the night drinking at Sturgeon’s home in Pecos in 2021. An argument broke out after Singer, a friend of Sturgeon, gave Valencia a haircut that he did not like. Valencia went outside, retrieved a gun from his vehicle and fired multiple shots at the front door, which had been locked. Valencia shot Singer in the head after entering the house and then shot Aragon between the eyes. He pointed the gun at Sturgeon, who hid while Valencia repeatedly fired the gun while walking around the house saying he was going to shoot Sturgeon.
Sturgeon called 911, and state police found Valencia slumped over the steering wheel in Sturgeon’s van and not moving. He smelled of alcohol, was not wearing shoes and had an unlit cigar or cigarette in his hand.
To be entitled to a voluntary intoxication jury instruction under the law, a defendant must present evidence that he or she had used intoxicating alcohol or drugs, was actually intoxicated, and the level of intoxication interfered with their ability to form the necessary intent to commit the charged crime.
Trial courts must determine whether enough evidence is presented to justify the jury instruction. It is not the role of the court to weigh the degree to which evidence proves or disapproves a fact, the justices explained.
“The district court’s focus on Defendant’s ability to move about ‘on his own power,’ to make intelligent choices such as retrieving and then returning his gun to his vehicle, his ability to ‘crawl’ over the van’s console, and his ability to converse with police reveals the district court was weighing the evidence by comparing evidence pro and con on the issue of whether Defendant’s degree of intoxication interfered with his ability to form the requisite intent,” the Court wrote.
“By weighing the evidence in this manner, the district court also failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the instruction,” the justices explained. “To view evidence in the light most favorable to a certain outcome means a court must indulge all reasonable inferences and resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the outcome.”
The Court concluded “sufficient evidence supported instructing the jury on diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication.” Among that evidence, the justices noted, was Valencia’s statement to police that he drank half a fifth of vodka and at least two beers at Sturgeon’s house, and had been drinking before he arrived. Additionally, Valencia did not remember anything that occurred after shooting Singer.
“Defendant did not leave the scene, which could lead a reasonable juror to conclude his mental faculties were seriously impaired,” the Court wrote. “After all, reason and experience inform us that culpable people leave crime scenes, not that they sleep at them.”
The justices rejected arguments that Valencia’s convictions for shooting at the house and negligent use of a firearm violated constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Valencia negligently used a firearm because he carried his gun while intoxicated, and that conduct was different from shooting at the house with three people inside, the Court stated.
###
To read the decision in State v. Valencia, No. S-1-SC-40141, please visit the New Mexico Compilation Commission’s website using the following link:
