The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction of Nicholas M. Hubbard, who was found guilty of killing his mother Esther Hubbard and tampering with evidence. In an unpublished decision filed January 22, 2026, Justice Zamora rejected all of Hubbard's appellate challenges in the case *State v. Hubbard* (No. S-1-SC-40649).
Hubbard was convicted under NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-1(A)(1) for first-degree willful and deliberate murder and Section 30-22-5(A) for tampering with evidence. He appealed the convictions from the District Court of Otero County, where District Judge Stephen P. Ochoa presided over the original trial.
The defendant raised four primary arguments on appeal. First, Hubbard claimed insufficient evidence supported his convictions for both first-degree murder and tampering with evidence. Second, he argued the trial court committed fundamental error or his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses. Third, Hubbard contended the admission of evidence regarding a broomstick, knife, and his participation in Mixed Martial Arts constituted plain error. Finally, he argued the district court abused its discretion by not imposing sanctions against law enforcement for failing to record witness interviews.
According to the court's recitation of facts, the events leading to the killing began when Hubbard drank beer at a grocery store bar while his grandmother shopped. Later that evening at home, Hubbard spoke with a friend by telephone, after which he changed his clothes and went to bed. The friend subsequently called Hubbard's grandmother, expressing concern about his conversation with Hubbard. The grandmother responded that Hubbard was "acting a little funny" or "upset" and that she did not know what was wrong with him.
The grandmother then spoke about Hubbard to the victim in a separate phone call. Following this conversation, Esther Hubbard drove approximately one hour to the house where her son lived. The court's decision does not provide complete details about what transpired after the victim's arrival, as the provided excerpt ends at this point in the factual narrative.
The Supreme Court's decision to affirm suggests the justices found the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict and rejected Hubbard's procedural challenges. The court's conclusion that there was no fundamental error in jury instructions indicates the trial court properly instructed jurors on the elements of first-degree murder without requiring instructions on lesser charges.
Regarding the evidentiary challenges, the court apparently found no plain error in the admission of evidence related to weapons and Hubbard's martial arts background. Such evidence may have been relevant to establishing premeditation or the defendant's capacity to commit the alleged crimes. The court also rejected Hubbard's argument about law enforcement's failure to record witness interviews, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of this issue.
The case was handled by experienced legal counsel on both sides. Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, and Assistant Appellate Defender Tania Shahani represented Hubbard on appeal. The state was represented by Attorney General Raúl Torrez and Assistant Solicitor General Christa Street.
First-degree murder in New Mexico requires proof that the defendant killed another person with willful deliberation and premeditation. The conviction carries severe penalties, including the possibility of life imprisonment. Tampering with evidence involves knowingly destroying, changing, hiding, placing, or fabricating physical evidence with intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of any person or to throw suspicion on another.
The Supreme Court's decision is unpublished, meaning it was not selected for inclusion in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Under Rule 12-405 NMRA, unpublished decisions have restrictions on their citation and precedential value. The court noted that electronic versions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official filed version.
This case represents another instance where New Mexico's highest court has upheld a first-degree murder conviction against appellate challenges. The affirmance suggests the trial court properly conducted the proceedings and the jury had sufficient evidence to reach its verdict. Hubbard's conviction appears final unless he pursues federal habeas corpus relief, which would require demonstrating constitutional violations in his state court proceedings.
The case underscores the serious nature of domestic violence cases involving family members and the thorough appellate review process available to defendants challenging their convictions in capital and serious felony cases.