The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction of Breon Lamont Kindred in the killing of Lavon King, rejecting the defendant's claims of multiple trial errors in a nonprecedential decision issued December 4, 2025.
Kindred was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder (willful and deliberate) in the death of Lavon King following proceedings in the District Court of Bernalillo County under Judge Clara Moran. The conviction stemmed from what the court characterized as the willful and deliberate killing of the victim.
On appeal, Kindred challenged his conviction on three primary grounds: instructional error, evidentiary error, and improper prosecutorial questioning during voir dire. The defendant's legal team from Harrison & Hart, LLC, led by Nicholas T. Hart, argued that these alleged errors warranted reversal of the conviction.
The state's case was defended by Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office, with Assistant Solicitor General Teresa Ryan representing the state as appellee. The prosecution successfully defended the trial court's handling of the case and the validity of the conviction.
Writing for the court, Justice Bacon exercised the court's discretion under Rule 12-405(B) NMRA to affirm the defendant's conviction through a nonprecedential decision. This procedural choice significantly limits the ruling's precedential value and restricts its use in future cases.
The court's decision to issue a nonprecedential opinion follows established practice for cases where the legal issues do not warrant creating binding precedent. As the court noted, citing *State v. Byram*, "We exercise our discretion to affirm [the d]efendant's conviction by nonprecedential decision and thus limit our discussion of the law and the facts to that necessary to decide the merits of this appeal."
This approach allows the court to resolve the immediate case while avoiding the creation of precedent that could affect future criminal proceedings. Nonprecedential decisions cannot be cited as binding authority in subsequent cases, though they may be referenced for their persuasive value under limited circumstances.
The court's opinion revealed procedural deficiencies in the defendant's appellate brief that complicated the appeal. Justice Bacon noted that Kindred's legal team violated Rule 12-318(A)(3) NMRA by failing to provide supporting citations for multiple factual representations and procedural descriptions in their brief.
Under New Mexico appellate rules, defendant briefs must contain proper citations to the record, transcripts, or exhibits supporting each factual claim. The rule specifically requires "a summary of proceedings, briefly describing the nature of the case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below, and including a summary of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review."
As a consequence of these citation deficiencies, the court declined to rely on the defendant's representations of factual and procedural background where the brief failed to meet appellate standards. This procedural failing likely weakened the defendant's appeal and may have contributed to the court's decision to handle the case through a nonprecedential ruling.
The decision comes with standard warnings about unpublished opinions. The court noted that the decision "was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports" and directed readers to "Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions." The court also warned that "Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court."
The case represents another instance of New Mexico's highest court using nonprecedential decisions to manage its docket while resolving individual appeals. This practice allows the court to address the specific legal claims raised by defendants without creating binding precedent that might have broader implications for criminal law in the state.
For Kindred, the affirmance means his first-degree murder conviction stands. The ruling resolves his direct appeal, though potential post-conviction remedies may remain available under appropriate circumstances.
The case also highlights the importance of proper brief preparation in appellate practice. The court's criticism of citation deficiencies serves as a reminder to criminal defense attorneys about the technical requirements governing appellate briefs and the potential consequences of procedural violations.
The affirmance by New Mexico's highest court represents the conclusion of Kindred's direct appeal process for his first-degree murder conviction in the death of Lavon King. The nonprecedential nature of the decision limits its broader impact on New Mexico criminal law while resolving the specific claims raised in this appeal.