Note for New Mexico Residents on Defense of Property
The Court of Appeals (State v. Emmons May 11, 2007) sustained the conviction of a man who witnessed his truck being driven out of his driveway at night. (they were repo men). He went to his bedroom, retrieved a pistol, and a few minutes later gave chase. He first forced the repo men’s car off the road, and a little later, forced the truck to the side of the road. He then by threat of deadly force got the one man out of the truck after firing a “warning” shot. Waving a pistol at them, the defendant ordered them into their own car and allowed them to leave. The assault victims had identified themselves as repo men at the time of the stop.
The Court held the defense of property exception did not apply “since the action was not taken to prevent the theft, but rather to recover a truck already stolen.”
The Court did not allow the citizen’s arrest argument to fly. “Furthermore, Defendant never intended to call the police; he stated he was seeking the return of his truck when he armed himself and left his house.” The Court called this “vigilantism”, which it defined as “unreasonable self-help action by citizens that tends to disrupt the administration of the criminal justice system.” The purpose of citizen’s arrest is to hold the offender for the authorities.
“It is this last element of reasonableness – using the power of citizen’s arrest to facilitate lawful process as opposed to pure self-help that Defendant has ignored, and which now renders his defense incomplete.”
Edit: He was convicted of assualt with a deadly weapon.
The Court of Appeals (State v. Emmons May 11, 2007) sustained the conviction of a man who witnessed his truck being driven out of his driveway at night. (they were repo men). He went to his bedroom, retrieved a pistol, and a few minutes later gave chase. He first forced the repo men’s car off the road, and a little later, forced the truck to the side of the road. He then by threat of deadly force got the one man out of the truck after firing a “warning” shot. Waving a pistol at them, the defendant ordered them into their own car and allowed them to leave. The assault victims had identified themselves as repo men at the time of the stop.
The Court held the defense of property exception did not apply “since the action was not taken to prevent the theft, but rather to recover a truck already stolen.”
The Court did not allow the citizen’s arrest argument to fly. “Furthermore, Defendant never intended to call the police; he stated he was seeking the return of his truck when he armed himself and left his house.” The Court called this “vigilantism”, which it defined as “unreasonable self-help action by citizens that tends to disrupt the administration of the criminal justice system.” The purpose of citizen’s arrest is to hold the offender for the authorities.
“It is this last element of reasonableness – using the power of citizen’s arrest to facilitate lawful process as opposed to pure self-help that Defendant has ignored, and which now renders his defense incomplete.”
Edit: He was convicted of assualt with a deadly weapon.
Last edited:
