Aggravated Assault Excluded as Predicate Felony for Felony Murder: Collateral-Felony Doctrine Reinforced in State v. Revels

Introduction

In State v. Revels, 2025-NM-____, __ P.3d __, the Supreme Court of New Mexico clarified the longstanding “collateral‐felony doctrine” by holding that aggravated assault can never serve as the predicate felony for a first‐degree felony murder conviction. The opinion also addresses the availability of retrial when a conviction is vacated for legal error, refines the interplay between double jeopardy and the direct-remand rule, and resolves several secondary issues arising from a fatal house‐party shooting in Las Cruces.

Defendant‐Appellant Mawu Ekon Revels, prosecuted as a Serious Youthful Offender, was charged with first-degree murder and related offenses after bullets from a chaotic house-party fight killed a bystander. The state tried both theories of first-degree murder—willful and deliberate murder and felony murder predicated on aggravated assault. A directed verdict acquitted Revels of willful and deliberate murder, leaving only the felony murder count. The jury convicted him of felony murder, two conspiracy counts, aggravated assault with a firearm, and shooting at a motor vehicle. On appeal, Revels argued (1) aggravated assault is noncollateral and cannot support felony murder, (2) double jeopardy and the direct-remand rule bar resentencing or retrial on a lesser included offense, (3) one conspiracy conviction lacked evidentiary support, (4) a four-year firearm enhancement exceeded statutory authority, and (5) a Batson claim arose when the prosecutor struck a Black juror.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court unanimously held aggravated assault is noncollateral and thus cannot serve as the underlying felony for felony murder. Revels’s felony murder conviction is a “legal nullity” and must be vacated.
• Vacatur of a conviction for a “nonexistent crime” (felony murder predicated on a noncollateral felony) is treated as reversal for trial error rather than insufficient evidence. Double jeopardy does not bar retrial on the same or lesser offenses.
• The direct-remand rule applies only when a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence (i.e., an acquittal). Because vacatur here is for trial error, the Court declined to remand directly for entry of judgment on second-degree murder.
• One of the two conspiracy convictions was unsupported under the rebuttable-presumption test of a single overarching agreement (State v. Gallegos). That conviction was vacated.
• The four-year firearm enhancement on the aggravated assault sentence was illegal. The statute authorized only a discretionary one-year enhancement for a serious youthful offender. The case is remanded for correct resentencing.
• The Batson challenge to striking a Black juror (Juror 22) failed: Revels did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the prosecutor offered permissible, race-neutral bases (potential bias, incomplete questionnaire answers).

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court’s opinion relies extensively on New Mexico and federal precedents to articulate two core doctrines: the collateral‐felony limitation on felony murder and the double jeopardy framework distinguishing acquittals from trial errors.

• State v. Campos, 2007-NMSC-021: Traced the collateral-felony doctrine and held aggravated assault is noncollateral and cannot predicate felony murder.
• State v. Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021 ¶¶ 10–12: Emphasized every form of aggravated assault or battery is “always deemed to be noncollateral.”
• State v. Groves, 2021-NMSC-003: Defined collateral felonies as those with a purpose distinct from endangering victim health.
• Barefoot Double Jeopardy Lineage:
  • Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978): Reversal for insufficient evidence equals acquittal; retrial barred.
  • United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978): Acquittal can never be reviewed without violating double jeopardy.
  • United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463 (1964): Reversal for trial error permits retrial; societal interest in retrial outweighs hardship.
  • Montana v. Hall, 481 U.S. 400 (1987): Conviction for a nonexistent crime is a charging defect, not a failure of proof.
• State v. Lizzol, 2007-NMSC-024: Adopted federal double jeopardy distinctions in New Mexico; reversal for trial error (other than evidentiary insufficiency) permits retrial.
• State v. Haynie, 1994-NMSC-001: Introduced the “direct-remand rule” for acquittals; courts may remand for entry of judgment on a lesser included offense when the jury was instructed on it and sufficient evidence existed.
• State v. Villa, 2004-NMSC-031: Refined Haynie—an appellate court may not remand for a lesser offense unless the jury was instructed on that offense.
• State v. Tafoya, 2012-NMSC-030: Applied Haynie direct-remand to a factual insufficiency ruling on a predicate felony for felony murder (shooting “at or from” a vehicle).
• State v. Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027: Established the rebuttable presumption that multiple conspiracies collapse into a single conspiracy absent clear proof of separate agreements.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Collateral-Felony Doctrine

Under New Mexico law, the predicate felony for felony murder must be “collateral”—its felonious purpose must differ fundamentally from assaulting the victim. Aggravated assault is never considered collateral because causing grievous bodily harm or fear is inherent to homicide. Consequently, any felony murder conviction based on aggravated assault is a “legal nullity” and must be vacated.

b. Double Jeopardy and “Nonexistent Crime”

The Court distinguished between:

• Acquittals (reversals for insufficient evidence): Final judgments of innocence; retrial is barred.
• Trial Errors (including convictions for “nonexistent crimes” due to charging defects): Retrial is permitted because the reversal does not resolve factual guilt and societal interests favor a fair retrial.
  • Vacating felony murder as predicated on aggravated assault is a charging defect, not an evidentiary failure.
  • Hall, 481 U.S. at 404: “The Constitution permits retrial after a conviction is reversed because of a defect in the charging instrument.”

c. Direct-Remand Rule

The direct-remand rule arises when a conviction is reversed for insufficient evidence:

• If the jury was instructed on a lesser included offense and the evidence was sufficient to support it, an appellate court may remand directly for entry of judgment on that lesser offense. (Haynie; Villa.)
• If there remains a factual question for the jury, retrial rather than direct remand is in the interests of justice. (Garcia; Tafoya.)

Because Revels’s felony murder conviction was vacated for trial error—not evidentiary insufficiency—the direct-remand rule does not apply and the state may choose to retry Revels on felony murder (with a proper predicate) or any lesser offense.

d. Conspiracy and Firearm Enhancement

• Conspiracy: Under Gallegos, multiple conspiracies require separate agreements or objectives. The state did not rebut the presumption of a single agreement to commit both aggravated assault and shooting at a vehicle. One conspiracy conviction was vacated.
• Firearm Enhancement: Section 31-18-16(B) (2020) authorized a three-year enhancement for brandishing, reduced to one year for serious youthful offenders by statute. The district court’s four-year enhancement was illegal and remand for correct resentencing is required.

3. Impact

State v. Revels reinforces and clarifies several critical principles in New Mexico criminal law:

• Collateral-Felony Doctrine: A definitive reaffirmation that aggravated assault (and all forms thereof) can never predicate felony murder.
• Double Jeopardy Boundaries: Confirms that reversal for charging defects (nonexistent crimes) permits retrial, while reversal for insufficient evidence bars it.
• Direct-Remand Rule Defined: Limits direct remand to acquittal cases and preserves appellate discretion to serve the interests of justice.
• Sentencing Precision: Emphasizes strict statutory compliance in firearm enhancements and clarifies discretionary vs. mandatory components.
• Conspiracy Joinder: Affirms the high bar to pierce the single conspiracy presumption, reinforcing streamlined charging practices.

Future felony murder cases must carefully select collateral predicates. Prosecutors may need to reexamine indictments where assaultive conduct underlies homicide. Defense counsel gain robust ammunition to challenge felony murder charges tied to noncollateral felonies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Collateral-Felony Doctrine: Homicide‐predicating felonies must have a purpose distinct from merely harming the victim. Assault never qualifies, because causing harm or fear is the essence of homicide.
• Nonexistent Crime: A conviction based on a charging defect—for example, an element that does not exist in law—is legally void and treated as trial error.
• Double Jeopardy Distinction:
  • Acquittal (insufficient evidence) = no retrial.
  • Trial error (including nonexistent crime) = retrial allowed.
• Direct-Remand Rule: When an acquittal reversal leaves no factual questions on a properly instructed lesser offense, an appellate court may directly order resentencing on that offense without a new trial.
• Lesser-Included Offense: A crime whose elements are entirely subsumed within a greater offense; e.g., second-degree murder is a lesser included of felony murder.

Conclusion

State v. Revels delivers a clear articulation of the collateral-felony doctrine: aggravated assault is categorically noncollateral and cannot underpin a felony murder conviction. The Court’s rigorous double jeopardy analysis distinguishes between acquittals and trial errors, cementing the rule that retrial is permissible when convictions are vacated for legal defects. The decision also refines the direct-remand rule, underscores precise sentencing under the firearm enhancement statute, and applies established tests for joinder in conspiracy cases and Batson challenges.

Going forward, this opinion will guide prosecutors in drafting valid felony murder charges, equip defense counsel with authoritative grounds to attack noncollateral predicates, and give appellate courts a framework to balance finality, fairness, and societal interests in retrial and resentencing.