State v. Wood: Validity of Felony-Murder Convictions Despite Jury Deadlock on the Predicate Felony

Introduction

State v. Wood, No. S-1-SC-40305 (N.M. June 9, 2025), is a non-precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of New Mexico that nevertheless clarifies several recurring issues in criminal practice: (1) whether a felony-murder conviction can stand when the jury fails to convict on the underlying felony, (2) the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence as proof of “shooting at a motor vehicle,” (3) the scope of accessory liability, and (4) the standard for finding fundamental error in jury instructions and closing argument. Matthew Wood was convicted of first-degree felony murder and shooting at a motor vehicle after an attempted gun transaction devolved into mutual gunfire, leaving the firearm’s seller (Victim) dead and the driver of a nearby Mercedes (Chavez) seriously injured.

Wood appealed, raising five principal arguments: insufficiency of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, due-process violation stemming from inconsistent verdicts (felony murder without armed-robbery conviction), faulty jury instructions, and cumulative error. The Court rejected each argument and affirmed. Although issued under Rule 12-405 as “non-precedential,” the decision articulates and applies important principles that will guide future litigants.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court, per Justice Zamora, held:

Sufficiency of evidence: Substantial direct and circumstantial evidence showed Wood aided and abetted armed robbery that resulted in Victim’s death and personally fired at the fleeing Mercedes.
Prosecutorial misconduct: The challenged portions of closing argument were reasonable inferences from the evidence and did not constitute fundamental error.
Inconsistent verdicts: A felony-murder conviction may stand even when the jury hangs on the predicate felony; Powell/Dunn and State v. Veleta foreclose relief.
Jury instructions: Any variance between the felony-murder instruction (accessory theory only) and the armed-robbery instruction (principal and/or accessory) did not omit an essential element or mislead the jury.
Cumulative error: No individual errors existed, so none could accumulate.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010 – standard for sufficiency review (evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict).
State v. Salazar, 1967-NMSC-187, and UJI 14-2821 – definition of aiding and abetting.
State v. Nieto, 2000-NMSC-031 – accessory liability where defendant holds third party at bay during killings.
State v. Griffin, 1993-NMSC-071 – felony-murder “intent” satisfies if defendant knows conduct creates strong probability of death.
State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059 – awareness of gun supports inference of dangerous intent.
State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009 – forensics plus testimony can establish who fired.
State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005 – fundamental-error standard for prosecutorial misconduct.
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984), and Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (1932) – inconsistent verdict rule.
State v. Veleta, 2023-NMSC-024 – New Mexico adopts Powell; sufficiency review protects defendant.
State v. Nance, 1966-NMSC-207, and State v. Carrasco, 1997-NMSC-047 – no distinction between principal and accessory liability.
State v. Candelaria, 2019-NMSC-004 – fundamental error when instruction omits essential element or is incomprehensible.

2. Legal Reasoning

a) Sufficiency of the evidence

The Court treated the jury instructions as the law of the case and asked whether any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Wood satisfied each element. For felony murder, the contested elements were (5) “helped, encouraged, or caused the killing” and (6) intent/knowledge of probability of death. Evidence that Wood held Chavez at knifepoint, fired at the Mercedes, and had a history of planning robberies with McNab permitted the jury to infer both assistance and requisite mens rea. Likewise, circumstantial ballistic and positional evidence (entry angles, magazine in hoodie, location of .40-caliber Glock) allowed the jury to conclude Wood shot at the Mercedes.

b) Prosecutorial misconduct

Applying fundamental-error review, the Court found the prosecutor’s statements grounded in trial proof. Under Duffy, fair comment on evidence is permissible; speculation is not. Here, comments on ballistics, DNA, and money as robbery proceeds were linked to testimony from Chavez, a forensics expert, and other witnesses.

c) Inconsistent verdicts

Relying on Powell and Veleta, the Court reiterated that consistency between counts is unnecessary. A hung jury on armed robbery did not negate the well-supported finding that Victim was killed during the attempted robbery. The defendant’s due-process protection lies in the appellate sufficiency check, which Wood failed to defeat.

d) Jury instructions

Because principal and accessory liability are “not legally distinct offenses,” the felony-murder instruction’s exclusive focus on aiding/abetting did not omit an element. Reading the instructions as a whole, no reasonable juror could have been misled. Even if the armed-robbery charge offered two theories while felony murder offered one, the variance favored—rather than prejudiced—the defense.

e) Cumulative error

Absent individual error, there is nothing to cumulate. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, controls.

3. Impact of the Decision

Re-affirms inconsistency doctrine: New Mexico trial courts and appellate lawyers can rely on Wood (following Veleta) as confirmation that felony-murder convictions are not jeopardized by jury acquittal or deadlock on the predicate felony.
Accessory liability clarity: The Court underscores that aiding and abetting is merely a mode of proof, not a separate crime or element. Jury instructions need not list both principal and accessory theories in every count.
Weight of circumstantial evidence: The opinion illustrates how positioning evidence, magazine visibility, and bullet trajectories may together prove “shooting at a motor vehicle” without direct eyewitness identification.
Limits on fundamental-error review: Wood sets a high bar for unpreserved claims of prosecutorial misconduct or instructional error; arguments must point to concrete misstatements or genuinely misleading language.
Practical takeaway for prosecutors: Closing arguments grounded in testimony and forensics—even if inferential—will survive scrutiny, but counsel must tether each inference to cited evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Felony Murder: A homicide that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of certain felonies (e.g., armed robbery) automatically upgrades the killing to first-degree murder if the defendant intended to commit the felony and acted in a way dangerous to life.
Aiding and Abetting (Accessory Liability): You can be convicted as if you pulled the trigger even when you did not, so long as you intentionally helped or encouraged the crime.
Sufficiency of Evidence: On appeal, the court looks at all admitted evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict; contradictions and contrary inferences are resolved for the verdict unless no rational juror could convict.
Fundamental Error: An unpreserved mistake so serious that it undermines the integrity of the proceedings (e.g., omitting an essential element from the jury instructions). Rarely found.
Inconsistent Verdicts: A jury may return logically inconsistent findings (e.g., guilty of felony murder but not of the underlying felony). Appellate courts will not disturb the conviction if sufficient evidence supports it.
Non-precedential Decision: Under Rule 12-405 NMRA, certain appellate opinions cannot be cited as binding precedent. They may still provide persuasive authority and practical guidance.

Conclusion

Although issued as a “decision” rather than a full, published opinion, State v. Wood supplies a robust, well-reasoned application of New Mexico criminal law. Its most notable contribution is the explicit reiteration—drawing from both federal and state authority—that a felony-murder conviction remains sound even when the jury fails to reach (or returns an acquittal on) the predicate felony. The case also demonstrates New Mexico’s continued comfort with convicting on substantial circumstantial evidence, reinforces the broad reach of accessory liability, and illustrates the high threshold for finding fundamental or cumulative error on appeal. Practitioners should therefore treat Wood as a cautionary tale: defendants cannot rely on jury inconsistency, technical evidentiary gaps, or generalized objections to jury instructions to secure appellate relief where the record as a whole amply supports guilt.