## Facts

- Thomas N. Brown, Jr., age 15, and other boys went at night to Jesus R. Martinez’s farm to steal watermelons on September 18 and again on September 19, 1954.
- On the second night, two boys entered the melon patch, while Brown was near the fence at the southeast corner in the highway right-of-way.
- Martinez heard the boys, came out of his house with a rifle, and yelled for them to leave.
- Martinez fired a shot “to scare” the boys and claimed he did not intend to hit anyone.
- The bullet struck Brown in the back of his left leg, breaking bones and exiting through the front of the leg.
- Brown’s father sued for his son’s injuries and for medical and hospital expenses incurred for the son.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner has a privilege to discharge a firearm (force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury) to prevent trespass or minor theft when the landowner faces no threat to personal safety and no felony is occurring.
2. Whether the landowner is liable for the shooting injury despite asserting an intent only to frighten trespassers rather than to hit anyone.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the trial court’s dismissal entered after a bench trial.
- The court held that Martinez’s use of a rifle to protect property against trespass and minor theft was excessive and unlawful as a matter of law.
- Martinez was liable for Brown’s injuries notwithstanding his claimed lack of intent to strike anyone.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including determination of damages.

## Legal Principles

- There is no privilege to use force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury when only property is threatened and the actor is not preventing a felony or defending against a threat to personal safety.
- Defense of property permits only force reasonably necessary to expel or prevent an intrusion; deadly or seriously harmful force is not justified to stop nonviolent misdemeanors such as trespass and petty theft.
- Even if factual findings support that the actor intended only to frighten, intentionally discharging a firearm toward people in these circumstances is wrongful as a matter of law and supports liability for resulting bodily harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that protecting property from minor, nonviolent misconduct does not justify discharging a firearm, and it imposed liability for the injury caused by the excessive force, remanding for a damages determination.


Brown v. Martinez, 68 N.M. 271, 361 P.2d 152 (N.M. 1961)