# Archuleta v. LaCuesta

> New Mexico Court of Appeals · July 2, 1999 · 128 N.M. 13

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558677

## Case

- **Full name:** Rose ARCHULETA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Marvin Archuleta, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wesley LACUESTA, Ronald Hensinger, John Denko, the New Mexico State Police and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees, and New Mexico Association of Counties, New Mexico Municipal League, the City of Albuquerque, the Regents of the University of New Mexico and the New Mexico Medical Society, Intervenors
- **Court:** New Mexico Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 2, 1999
- **Citations:** 128 N.M. 13; 988 P.2d 883; 1999 NMCA 113
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hartz
- **Judges:** Wechsler, Apodaca, Hartz
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558677

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the reasonableness of an officer’s use of deadly force is measured “from the perspective of the officer on the scene, with the understanding that officers must often make split-second decisions in difficult situations”

## Opinion text

HARTZ, Judge (concurring).
{20} I join fully Judge Wechsler’s opinion for the Court. I write separately only to emphasize that the defendant officers attempted to justify the shooting of Mr. Archuleta solely on the ground of the threat he posed to the officers’ safety. In particular, they did not argue that deadly force may have been permissible because of the threat he posed to his wife or other members of the public. The United States Supreme Court stated in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11-12 , 105 S.Ct. 1694 , 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), that if “there is probable cause to believe that [the suspect] has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.” In a footnote the Court also indicated that an officer may use deadly force “to apprehend ‘perpetrators who, in the course of their crime threatened the use of deadly force, or if the officer believes there is a substantial risk that the person whose arrest is sought will cause death or serious bodily harm if his apprehension is delayed,’ ” when the officer “ ‘know[s], as a virtual certainty, that the suspect committed an offense for which the use of deadly force is permissible.’ ” Id. at 9 n. 8, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (quoting President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Police 189 (1967)).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558677. Public record. Not legal advice.