The New Mexico Supreme Court has affirmed the first-degree murder conviction of Solomon Hayhurst III for the 2019 shooting death of his father, Solomon "Butch" Hayhurst Jr., near Truth or Consequences. The court's decision, filed Nov. 20, 2025, rejected Hayhurst's appeal arguments and upheld the jury's verdict that found him guilty of deliberate intent murder.
The fatal shooting occurred just after midnight on July 24, 2019, at the Hayhurst family residence. Police responded to a call from a home security company reporting that a firearm had been discharged in the home and an ambulance was needed. When regional dispatch contacted Hayhurst about the gunshot, he admitted shooting his father but claimed he acted in self-defense because his father "became irate and threatened to kill him."
At trial, the jury rejected Hayhurst's self-defense claim after reviewing multiple forms of evidence that contradicted his initial statements to police. Key evidence included Hayhurst's own testimony and security camera footage that undermined his version of events. The prosecution presented witness testimony and documentary evidence supporting their theory that Hayhurst premeditated the murder due to a dispute over his father's estate.
The case centered on competing narratives about what led to the fatal shooting. Hayhurst maintained that he killed his father in self-defense when the situation escalated and his father threatened his life. However, prosecutors argued that the killing was premeditated, stemming from a family dispute over estate matters. The jury ultimately found the state's evidence more convincing than Hayhurst's self-defense claim.
Security camera footage played a crucial role in undermining Hayhurst's credibility with the jury. The footage apparently contradicted statements Hayhurst made to police immediately after the shooting, raising questions about the accuracy of his account of the events leading up to his father's death. This discrepancy between his statements and the video evidence proved damaging to his defense.
On appeal, Hayhurst raised three main arguments seeking a new trial. First, he claimed the state mischaracterized his testimony during closing arguments. Second, he argued that a witness improperly testified about threats he allegedly made against other family members. Third, he contended that these errors, considered together, constituted cumulative error requiring reversal of his conviction.
Chief Justice Thomson, writing for the court, systematically rejected each of Hayhurst's appeal arguments. The court found no prosecutorial misconduct in the state's characterization of his testimony during closing arguments. The justices also determined that the witness testimony about alleged threats against other family members was properly admitted and did not constitute reversible error.
Regarding the cumulative error claim, the court applied the standard that multiple errors, even if individually harmless, can collectively undermine confidence in a verdict. However, the justices concluded that the alleged errors in this case did not meet that threshold and therefore did not warrant overturning the conviction.
The case highlights the challenges defendants face when claiming self-defense in homicide cases. Self-defense requires showing that the defendant reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. The defendant typically bears the burden of producing evidence supporting the claim, though the prosecution must still prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Modern technology, particularly security camera systems, increasingly plays a role in criminal cases by providing objective evidence that can support or contradict witness accounts. In this case, the security footage appears to have been particularly damaging to Hayhurst's credibility and his self-defense claim.
Family disputes over estates and inheritance can sometimes escalate to violence, as prosecutors alleged occurred here. Such cases often involve complex family dynamics and long-standing grievances that can be difficult for juries to untangle when determining motive and intent.
The conviction carries significant consequences for Hayhurst, who was found guilty of first-degree deliberate intent murder, one of the most serious charges in New Mexico's criminal code. First-degree murder convictions typically result in lengthy prison sentences, though the court record does not specify the exact sentence imposed in this case.
The Supreme Court's decision represents the final resolution of Hayhurst's direct appeal, though defendants in capital cases may have additional post-conviction remedies available under certain circumstances. The court's rejection of his appeal arguments effectively closes this chapter of the legal proceedings that began with his father's death more than six years ago.
The case serves as a reminder that self-defense claims require substantial evidence to overcome prosecution arguments about premeditation and intent, particularly when physical evidence contradicts a defendant's statements to police.