## Facts

- Joseph Lucas Mantelli, a uniformed Las Vegas, New Mexico police officer, pursued a white Toyota truck driven by Abelino Montoya, with Gabriel Rubio as passenger, after observing driving consistent with an earlier wrong-way incident and attempted evasion.
- During the pursuit, Montoya accelerated, ran multiple stop signs, and drove to a dead-end street.
- At the dead-end, the parties disputed whether the truck backed into the patrol car or the patrol car struck the truck; Mantelli testified he believed the truck was being used as a weapon.
- Mantelli exited the patrol car, broke the driver’s window with his handgun, and fired multiple shots as the truck moved; two bullets killed Montoya.
- Mantelli asserted he feared for his own life and for Sergeant Steve Marquez’s life, believing Marquez might be outside the patrol car and in the truck’s path.
- The State presented evidence suggesting Mantelli’s motive was to prevent escape, including testimony that Mantelli said the truck “was about to get away,” and evidence that Mantelli tried to “block in” the truck contrary to departmental policy.
- Mantelli was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and shooting at a motor vehicle resulting in injury.
- The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense but refused Mantelli’s requested instruction on justifiable homicide by a police officer under NMSA 1978, § 30-2-6.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required a jury instruction on justifiable homicide by a police officer under NMSA 1978, § 30-2-6.
2. Whether the refusal to give the § 30-2-6 instruction was prejudicial error requiring reversal and a new trial.
3. Whether other alleged errors (including venue, judicial excusal, jury-instruction elements, and sufficiency of the evidence) warranted relief or required guidance for retrial.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed Mantelli’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held Mantelli was entitled to a § 30-2-6 justifiable-homicide-by-police-officer instruction because there was at least slight evidence supporting the defense.
- The court concluded the failure to instruct on § 30-2-6 was not harmless because it removed a legally valid basis on which the jury could have acquitted.
- The court addressed additional issues primarily to guide proceedings on retrial and found the evidence sufficient to permit retrial without double-jeopardy bar.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a theory of defense if there is any evidence, even slight, supporting it; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to giving the instruction, and close questions are resolved in favor of instructing.
- Justifiable homicide by a police officer under NMSA 1978, § 30-2-6 is distinct from civilian self-defense and reflects the standards applicable to law-enforcement use of deadly force in the course of official duties.
- The officer-justification analysis turns on whether the officer had probable cause to believe the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical harm, consistent with constitutional limits on deadly force.
- Instructional error is prejudicial when the omitted instruction would have allowed the jury to consider a legally supported defense that could lead to acquittal, even if the jury was instructed on a different, narrower defense theory.
- Appellate review of sufficiency may be undertaken to determine whether retrial is permissible; if evidence could support conviction when viewed in the verdict’s favor, retrial is allowed.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the record contained evidence from which a jury could find Mantelli’s use of deadly force justified under the police-officer statutory standard, and the failure to instruct on that defense deprived the jury of a supported ground for acquittal.


State v. Mantelli, 131 N.M. 692, 42 P.3d 272 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002)