.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — It was nearly 2 a.m. when Requildo Cardenas was awakened by loud banging on his front door. The person attempting to open the door wouldn’t give a name when Cardenas demanded one, so he fired an AK-type rifle once through the door.

On the other side was one of his closest friends, Matthew Lujan.

At his first trial, prosecutors failed to convict Cardenas of second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, which applies when there is no malicious intent to kill or the killing is done in the heat of emotion.

ADVERTISEMENTSkip

................................................................

So they tried again, securing a conviction and sending Cardenas to prison for five years followed by another seven years of supervision.

And now prosecutors are preparing for a third trial after the state Court of Appeals reversed the conviction because Cardenas wasn’t allowed to defend himself under the state’s home defense statute.

That law and subsequent interpretations of it say a person in his or her home can use lethal force against an intruder to prevent a violent felony.

The language of the law seems simple enough, but it can be tricky. When Cardenas’ lawyer, Alan Maestas, asked during the second trial that the jury be allowed to consider the defense, 8th Judicial District Court Judge Sarah Backus ruled it didn’t apply to the situation.

Eighth Judicial District Attorney Donald Gallegos said last week that he still believes the defense doesn’t apply, “but it doesn’t matter” since the Court of Appeals ruled it does.

Appeals judges wrote in their February opinion that Backus wrongly interpreted the home defense law to mean it required evidence that the intruder intended to commit a violent felony inside the home. Appeals judges say the law only requires a homeowner to believe the intruder means violent harm.

The judges also ruled that there was sufficient evidence to warrant allowing the jury to make a decision about Cardenas defending his home under the law.

And they ruled that an additional option for the jury to consider was inappropriately denied.

Prosecutors were trying Cardenas under the voluntary manslaughter law, though Maestas had asked that the jury also be allowed to consider a lesser charge option of involuntary manslaughter. Judge Backus denied the lesser option, which holds 18 months in prison versus three years for the higher charge.

Both the home defense and lesser involuntary charge should have been available to Cardenas and the jury, the judges ruled.

That means Cardenas’ case is, in a sense, back to the beginning. Prosecutors can decide to try him again or they could dismiss the case.

“It’s a win in the sense that what we asked for was validated,” Maestas said. “It’s not really a win when you consider he has spent 2½ years in prison when it was … jury instructions weren’t right. It’s a loss in the sense he’s out 2½ years. I think this was a really tragic accident. They were very close friends.”

Gallegos said his office plans to try him again. He said the previous jury found there was enough evidence to convict on the manslaughter charge.

“They didn’t feel it was an accidental if they convicted him,” Gallegos said.

But they didn’t have the option of choosing the home defense, Cardenas’ attorney Maestas said.

As of Monday, Cardenas was still in prison after prosecutors filed a motion last to keep him in the county jail for further proceedings, which have not been scheduled.

Another defense of home denial

An Albuquerque judge wrongly denied the defense of home option in a 2010 domestic violence case brought against Chris Baxendale.

2/3Baxendale shot a handgun and then a shotgun through his back door when he heard someone breaking a gate lock and rattling his security door.

On the other side was his common-law wife and mother of his four children who had returned home, he says unexpectedly, after he had changed the locks without telling her. She was not injured.

He admitted shooting out the door and was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and negligent use of a firearm.

The prosecutors argued and a judge in the case agreed that the habitation defense hadn’t applied in the case because Baxendale had told his partner he would not be home, texted her to “have fun getting in” and stayed at home in the dark until the incident. Those details, prosecutors said, showed he wasn’t really in fear and knew she was coming home, meaning a reasonable person wouldn’t have responded as he did and thus the defense of habitation didn’t fit.

But Court of Appeals judges in March ruled he should have been allowed to present a defense of home option to the jury.

Prosecutors declined to retry him.