By Marty Mayfield
KRTN Multi-Media
The New Mexico Supreme Court handed down their decision in the murder case of David F. Morgan who was convicted by a jury in the 8th Judicial District Court after he was charged of shooting his neighbor James McDowell on April 1st, 2021.
Morgan shot McDowell nine times according to the police report. After the conviction the case was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court alleging that the jury conviction was based on insufficient evidence to support the element of deliberate intent in first-degree murder and that the state violated his right to silence by using his invocation of the right against him and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The decision goes on to site that law enforcement had been called to disputes between the two men on several occasions since 2012. On February 18, 2021, Morgan purchased a handgun. The day before the shooting had occurred the pair had a dispute over a chained-up dog in the alleyway. On April 1, 2021, 42 days after purchasing the handgun Morgan shot McDowell.
According to court documents the test for sufficiency of evidence is whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction. The court decision found in favor of the jury’s verdict asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court went on to say that first degree murder of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing. In other words, to prove that a defendant committed willful and deliberate murder in the first degree the stat must prove that the accused had the deliberate intent to take away the life of another. The court also agrees with the jury that the defendant di have intent based on the almost 10 years of conflict between the two.
The court also found that no error occurred as to the defendant’s claim that his right to silence for his refusal to speak to police damaged his credibility and undermined his self defense argument. The ineffective assistance of counsel was due to the lack of objection by Morgan’s attorney when the prosecutor mentioned his right to silence which he felt was a violation of his rights. The Court determined that while the prosecution is prohibited from commenting on a defendant’s right to remain silent the testimony in court between Deputy John Valdez and the prosecutor was unsolicited and possibly inadvertent and that the state did not draw attention to the defendant invoking his right to remain silent, the court therefore determined that there was no misconduct by the prosecutor.
The court indicates that the defendant must establish that his attorney was deficient in his defense. According to the court document the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice in his defense and that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. There for the court rejected the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
In conclusion the court taking into consideration the briefs and being fully informed on the issues they found that the defendant’s conviction for first degree willful and deliberate murder was correct and so ordered the conviction to stand.
