## Facts

- John Eloy Castro and Linda Castro had recently divorced after an eight-year marriage.
- On October 6, 1977, Linda called Castro requesting rent money; an argument followed and Linda used abusive language.
- After the call, Castro went to a store, purchased a gun and ammunition, appeared calm during the transaction, returned home, loaded the gun, waited about a half hour, and then walked to Linda’s house.
- Castro stated he planned to shoot Linda in the spine to prevent her from dancing.
- At Linda’s home, she became frightened, called police, and ran toward a back bedroom.
- Castro broke a window, unlocked the door, entered the dwelling, and shot Linda three times from about five feet away, killing her.
- Castro was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated burglary; the jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter and aggravated burglary, both with firearm enhancement.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence supported voluntary manslaughter by showing a “sudden quarrel” or “heat of passion” constituting sufficient provocation at the time of the killing.
2. Whether evidence supported aggravated burglary by showing an unauthorized entry of a dwelling with intent to commit a felony at the time of entry, notwithstanding the absence of a murder conviction.

## Decision

- The voluntary manslaughter conviction was reversed and Castro was ordered discharged on that count.
- The court held the record lacked evidence of sufficient provocation at the time of the killing, and that abusive words plus intervening time and deliberative acts did not satisfy the statutory requirement.
- The aggravated burglary conviction was affirmed.
- The court held there was substantial evidence that Castro unlawfully entered the dwelling with intent to commit a felony, which the jury could infer from the circumstances and subsequent conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntary manslaughter requires evidence of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion at the time of the killing; absent such evidence, submission of voluntary manslaughter is improper.
- Words alone, even if abusive or insulting, do not constitute sufficient provocation to reduce an intentional killing to voluntary manslaughter.
- Cooling time and deliberative conduct after alleged provocation may negate a claim that the killing occurred in a heat of passion.
- Aggravated burglary is established by unauthorized entry into a dwelling with intent to commit a felony at the time of entry; intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
- A burglary conviction may stand based on intent at entry even if the defendant is not convicted of the intended underlying felony.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the voluntary manslaughter conviction because the alleged provocation consisted of abusive words followed by ample time for reflection, leaving no evidence of a contemporaneous heat of passion, but it affirmed aggravated burglary because the forced entry and surrounding circumstances supported an inference of felonious intent at the moment of entry.


State v. Castro, 92 N.M. 585, 592 P.2d 185 (Ct. App. 1979)