NMSC Affirms Lymon Conviction

In State v. Lymon, a direct appeal of Lymon’s life sentence, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Davon Lymon for the 2015 murder of a police officer during a traffic stop. Although the relatively straightforward appeal was complicated by the jury’s confusion over the verdict forms, the Court had little difficulty affirming.

Background

This case arose out of a traffic stop in which Officer Webster had pulled Lymon over on suspicion of driving a stolen motorcycle. Although the officer initially pulled his gun on Lymon, he subsequently holstered it. As part of the stop, he also stepped on Lymon’s foot in order to maintain control of him. That control did not last for long: Lymon pulled his own gun, shooting the officer six times and fleeing. Officer Webster subsequently died.

At trial, Lymon was charged with first degree murder as well as a variety of lesser included offenses. The jury had some difficulty with the verdict forms. Initially, the jury found Lymon not guilty of first degree murder but did not fill out the rest of the form regarding the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or manslaughter. Furthermore, the jury’s responses to the special interrogatories suggested it believed Lymon was guilty of first degree murder.

The Court sent the forms back to the jury with a question that asked “What is your verdict as to Count 1?” The jury sent back the forms, this time with both the guilty and not guilty forms signed, and told the bailiff that the “guilty” verdict was the correct verdict. After denying a motion for a mistrial, the court sent new (unsigned) forms back for count one. This time, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the first degree murder charge.

The District Court Did Not Coerce the Jury

The main issue in this case was whether, in addressing the inconsistencies in the jury’s preliminary verdicts, the district court coerced the jury into finding Laymon guilty of first degree murder. This issue is reviewed under the difficult abuse of discretion standard. To answer it, the Court took a deep dive into jury verdicts.

A preliminary verdict expressed by the jury’s preliminary verdict forms is not, in fact, a final verdict. It is not final until rendered by the jury in open court and accepted by the court. The court is not required to accept the preliminary verdict, but also cannot arbitrarily reject it. Where the preliminary verdict is ambiguous or inconsistent, however, the court must seek to clarify the jury’s intent. Polling the jury is one way to clarify their intent, but the court may also communicate with the jury to determine its intent.

The court easily determined that the first two sets of forms were incomplete, inconsistent, and/or ambiguous. It then proceeded to whether, in seeking clarity as to the jury’s intent, the court had improperly influenced the jury.

A trial court may not influence the jury. This means it may not causes jurors to abandon their honest convictions. The reason is simple: coercing the jury violates the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.

The case law has diligently protected defendants from coercive questions from the court, drawing some fine distinctions about what is required and when the Court may need to include “cautioning” language. Ultimately, however, the Court avoided these cases, holding that the district court’s questions were simply not coercive, and essentially identical to polling the jury (a course of action the Court would have preferred).

The District Court Properly Denied a Self Defense Instruction

A second interesting issue in this case was the defendant’s request for a self-defense instruction. The defendant argued such an instruction was warranted because Officer Webster had pulled his gun on Lymon during the encounter and because he had stepped on his foot.

As you might suspect, the circumstances under which a person can kill a police officer in self defense are more limited than when no police officer is involved. Defendants are entitled to a self-defense instruction whenever they present evidence sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense. For a self-defense instruction, a defendant must present evidence of fear by an apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm, that the killing resulted from that fear, and that the defendant acted as a reasonable person would act under those circumstances. A jury instruction for self-defense against a police officer additionally requires the defendant to provide some evidence that the police officer used excessive force. 

The Court concluded Officer Webster had not used excessive force. His initial act of drawing a gun was supported by testimony that suspects on motorcycles pose greater threats than suspects in cars. And the Court observed that the officer deescalated the force by holstering his gun once he believed he had control of the situation. The Court did not find it necessary to address Lymon’s argument that it was reasonable for him to shoot Officer Webster in self defense because his foot had been stepped on.

The Court quickly disposed of a few remaining issues of the type that generally are raised in appeals as a matter of right but seldom are successful, and affirmed the conviction.

Looking for a New Mexico appellate attorney? Contact us or give me a call at (505) 273-9379.