Clarifying Alternative Murder Verdicts: Jury Step-Down Instruction and Felony-Murder Conviction Rule

Introduction

State of New Mexico v. Jimmie Atkins (No. S-1-SC-39940, June 2, 2025) presents a challenge to Atkins’s convictions for two counts of felony murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, evidence-tampering, and related conspiracies. Atkins and two co-defendants lured two teenage victims under false pretenses, kidnapped, beat, and ultimately shot them to death. At trial, the jury was instructed on first-degree deliberate-intent murder with second-degree murder and felony murder as alternatives. During deliberations, the jury asked whether it could convict on both second-degree and felony murder. The trial judge answered “yes” and directed the jury to follow the written instructions.

On appeal, Atkins argued that the court’s verbal response was inadequate and that the jury’s verdict—finding Atkins guilty of felony murder but not second-degree murder—demonstrated continuing confusion. The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed, holding that (1) the response accurately stated the law as reflected in uniform jury instructions; (2) the jury was free to return a guilty verdict on felony murder regardless of its findings on deliberate-intent or second-degree murder; and (3) absent any indication of ongoing confusion, no reversible error occurred.

Summary of the Judgment

Defendant Atkins appealed two felony-murder convictions, contending the trial court’s answer to a jury question about concurrent verdicts was “inadequate” and left jurors confused.
The jury had been instructed under UJI 14-6002B (step-down for first-degree deliberate-intent murder → second-degree murder) and UJI 14-202 (felony murder). Under those instructions, conviction for second-degree murder required unanimous acquittal of first-degree deliberate murder, but felony murder stood as an alternative irrespective of the first two verdicts.
When the jury asked, “Can the defendants be found guilty of second-degree murder and felony murder?” the court replied “yes” and reminded jurors to follow the written instructions. Atkins objected.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts of felony murder and no verdict on second-degree murder. Atkins’s convictions for the lesser offenses were then vacated on double-jeopardy grounds.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed de novo, applying the “reasonable-juror” standard for reversible error in jury instructions. It held the verbal response matched the written instructions, accurately stated the law, and addressed the precise point of confusion. No further clarification was requested, and the verdicts showed jurors followed the instructions correctly.
The convictions for felony murder were therefore affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Rule 12-405 NMRA: Governs citation of unpublished decisions; appellate discretion to decide by nonprecedential opinion.
State v. Doyal, 2023-NMCA-015: Appellant’s burden to demonstrate error in jury instructions.
State v. Cabezuela, 2011-NMSC-041: Jury instructions must be read as a whole and accurately state the law.
State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033: Reversible error arises when instructions misstate the law or confuse a reasonable juror.
State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022: Defines “reasonable juror” standard for confusion or misdirection.
State v. Veleta, 2023-NMSC-024: Factually analogous case confirming that a clear answer to a jury question suffices absent persistent confusion.
State v. Wilson, 1994-NMSC-009: Uniform jury instructions (UJIs) are presumed correct statements of the law.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning hinged on two points:

Accuracy of the Verbal Response: Under UJI 14-6002B, a juror could only convict on second-degree murder after unanimously rejecting first-degree deliberate murder. Under UJI 14-202, felony murder was an independent alternative charge. Thus, telling jurors “yes” to concurrent convictions accurately reflected the written instructions.
No Ongoing Confusion: The jury’s final verdict—guilty on felony murder only—demonstrated it understood when to stop deliberating on lesser included offenses once a felony-murder verdict was reached. No further juror inquiries or indications of misunderstanding arose.

Because the instructions, considered as a whole, fairly and accurately stated New Mexico law on alternative and step-down verdicts, the trial court committed no reversible error.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important principles for New Mexico practitioners:

Trial courts may answer jury inquiries succinctly, so long as the answer correctly reflects the written instructions and law.
Appellants bear the burden of demonstrating that a jury instruction or supplemental response was inaccurate or caused confusion that materially affected their verdicts.
Uniform Jury Instructions carry a presumption of correctness; deviations or supplemental explanations must be scrutinized against those UJIs.
Non-precedential (unpublished) decisions may guide but do not bind; Rule 12-405 allows citation when the issues are adequately addressed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Step-Down Instruction: A jury process that requires jurors to decide a higher-level offense (first-degree deliberate murder) before considering a lesser-included offense (second-degree murder). If the jury convicts of the higher offense, it stops; if it acquits, it moves to the lesser charge.
Felony-Murder Rule: A legal doctrine holding a defendant guilty of murder if a death occurs during the commission (or attempt) of certain felonies, regardless of intent to kill.
Reasonable-Juror Standard: On appeal, instructions are judged by whether a hypothetical reasonable juror would have been misled or confused, not by hindsight or hyper-technical reading.
Reversible Error: A mistake in the trial process that likely affected the outcome of the case, warranting reversal of conviction.
Uniform Jury Instructions (UJI): Standardized instructions adopted by New Mexico courts to ensure consistency and accuracy in conveying legal rules to juries.

Conclusion

State v. Atkins clarifies that a trial court’s brief, accurate response to a jury’s question about alternative verdicts—even one-word answers—suffices to resolve confusion if it faithfully mirrors the written instructions and is followed by the jury. The decision underscores the high burden on defendants to prove that any supplemental guidance misstates the law or left jurors materially confused. By affirming Atkins’s felony-murder convictions, the Supreme Court of New Mexico reaffirmed the integrity of its uniform jury-instruction regime and the importance of clear, consistent appellate briefing.