State v. Syed

This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: May 7, 2026

No. S-1-SC-40732

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MUHAMMAD ATIF SYED,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Britt M. Baca, District Judge

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Kimberly M. Chavez Cook, Appellate Defender
Brian Parrish, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Luz C. Valverde, Assistant Appellant Defender
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
Walter M. Hart III, Assistant Attorney General
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

DECISION

VIGIL, Justice.

{1} A jury found Defendant Muhammad Atif Syed guilty of the first-degree willful and
deliberate murder of Aftab Hussein (Victim) contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-
1(A)(1) (1994). Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his directed verdict
motion. He argues that there was insufficient evidence that he, in fact, shot Victim and
that the shooting was done with deliberate intent. We disagree and affirm. We exercise
our discretion to decide this appeal by nonprecedential decision. See Rule 12-
405(B)(1)-(2) NMRA.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

{2} Around 10:00 p.m. on July 26, 2022, Albuquerque Police Department (APD)
officers were a block and a half from Victim’s home on an unrelated call when they
heard a series of loud gunshots nearby and took cover. Once the shooting stopped it
took the officers about a minute to walk to Victim’s home. They found Victim lying in his
driveway next to his car, dead from gunshot wounds. One officer felt the hood of
Victim’s car and noted it was warm. The key fob to Victim’s car lay near his body. An
APD detective testified that some of the bullets went through the driver’s side of Victim’s
car and exited out the passenger side of the vehicle. He also stated that, based on the
positioning of shell casings, the shooter was approximately twenty feet from Victim.

{3} Witnesses said they saw a dark or white sedan fleeing the scene. On August 7,
2022, news media circulated a photograph of a sedan police believed was connected to
a shooting. The vehicle was a gray Volkswagen Jetta with front bumper damage and
distinctive seven spoke hubcaps. APD received a tip that Defendant owned the car.
Photos from Google Earth showed what appeared to be the same gray Jetta parked
outside Defendant’s home. A lay witness testified at trial that she knew Defendant from
the community and had seen Defendant driving a gray Volkswagen earlier in 2022. One
day after media circulated the photo, a caller reported that the distinctive seven spoke
hubcaps had been found in a dumpster about a mile and a half from Defendant’s house.

{4} APD conducted surveillance of Defendant’s home. On August 8, 2022, the day
after the photo of Defendant’s car was publicized, Defendant ran errands using a
different car. That evening, he left Albuquerque in the gray Jetta. He was followed and
eventually stopped by APD. When stopped, none of the gray Jetta’s wheels had the
distinctive seven spoke hubcaps on them; two of wheels had different hubcaps on them
and the other two wheels had no hubcaps. The license plate on the car did not match
the vehicle.

{5} APD detectives found Defendant’s iPhone in the gray Jetta. An expert in digital
forensics examined the phone and testified at trial. She said the phone was named
“Syed’s iPhone” and the phone’s iCloud account was connected to an email address
containing Defendant’s full name. Pursuant to a search warrant, the expert received and
reviewed T-Mobile records for Defendant. The expert also examined the phones of
Defendant’s family members. The expert testified that based on a life pattern analysis of
the cell phone data, each family member had their own cell phone and did not share
phones.

{6} The digital forensics expert also testified regarding some of the applications
(apps) on Defendant’s phone. When seized, the map app on Defendant’s iPhone was
open and actively providing directions to Texas. The expert also testified that the note
taking app on Defendant’s phone contained the following memo: “Test in Albuquerque
about AKM 47-7.62mm-test 9:50-7/26/2022-After-.” The prosecution argued during
closing statements that the word “After” was the auto corrected first name of the
Victim—Aftab.

{7} The digital forensics expert also testified regarding the phone’s location the night
of the murder. She stated that cell tower data showed Defendant’s phone left his house
at 8:54 p.m. and travelled east to Victim’s neighborhood. The phone stayed in Victim’s
neighborhood for twenty-five minutes. At 10:02 p.m., directly after the shooting,
Defendant’s phone travelled from Victim’s neighborhood back to Defendant’s house.

{8} After obtaining a search warrant, officers searched Defendant’s home and found
an AK 47-style 7.62 X 39 caliber semi-automatic rifle under Defendant’s bed. Through
its investigation APD discovered the rifle had been bought at BMC Tactical, a gun store
in Albuquerque. A clerk from the gun store testified at trial. He reported that Defendant
had purchased the rifle and picked it up at the store eleven days before the shooting.
Surveillance footage from the gun store showed Defendant arrived in his gray Jetta and
purchased the rifle. A firearms and tool mark expert testified at trial that nine spent rifle
casings and four bullet fragments collected from the scene of the shooting had been
fired from Defendant’s rifle. Two spent casings found on the floor inside the gray Jetta
also came from Defendant’s rifle. Additionally, a bullet recovered from Victim’s body
during his autopsy matched Defendant’s rifle.

{9} The medical examiner who performed Victim’s autopsy testified that Victim was
shot eleven times. She testified that Victim’s wounds were consistent with Victim having
been shot twice after he had fallen to the ground. The medical expert testified that the
cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds and the manner of death was homicide.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

{10} When reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict,1 we ask
“whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support
a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a
conviction.” State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314; id. ¶
20 (indicating that the substantial evidence standard applies when we review the denial
of a motion for directed verdict). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Montoya,
2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 53, 345 P.3d 1056 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation
omitted). “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, resolving all
conflicts and indulging all permissible inferences in favor of a verdict of conviction.”
State v. Garcia, 1992-NMSC-048, ¶ 24, 114 N.M. 269, 837 P.2d 862. We “disregard all

1Defendant argues that when ruling on the motion for directed verdict, the district court misstated the
sufficiency of evidence standard. Additionally, he states that the district court did not believe there was
evidence of Defendant’s state of mind. The State argues that the district court simply misspoke.
Regardless of whether the district court erred or misspoke, we review the district court’s decision under
the correct standard for sufficiency of the evidence.
evidence and inferences to the contrary.” State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126
N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Identity of the Shooter

{11} Defendant argues that there was not substantial evidence from which a jury
could reasonably infer he was the shooter. He claims that without an eyewitness,
fingerprints, or DNA evidence tying him to the shooting, it is possible a member of his
family used his gun, car, and phone when committing the murder. Quoting this Court, he
argues “There must . . . be actual evidence—not speculation—of a criminal act.” State
v. Consaul, 2014-NMSC-030, ¶ 92, 332 P.3d 850. However, the substantial evidence
needed for a conviction can be direct or circumstantial. See Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031,
¶ 21. The jury may rely on circumstantial evidence to reasonably infer that Defendant
shot Victim. See State v. Apodaca, 1994-NMSC-121, ¶¶ 8, 16, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d
756 (holding that although there was no direct evidence [the d]efendant and not her
daughter killed the victim, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence); see also State
v. Woodward, 1995-NMSC-074, ¶ 55, 121 N.M. 1, 908 P.2d 231 (explaining that even
without direct evidence that the defendant killed his wife, there was sufficient
circumstantial evidence to convict the defendant), rev’d on other grounds by Woodward
v. Williams, 263 F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (10th Cir. 2001).

{12} At trial, the State provided circumstantial evidence showing that Defendant was
more closely connected to the car, rifle, and phone used in the murder than anyone
else. Witnesses testified that a sedan sped away from the murder scene. When APD
circulated a photo of the vehicle suspected to be involved in the shooting—a gray Jetta
with front bumper damage and distinctive seven spoke hubcaps—they received a tip
that the car belonged to Defendant. A member of the community testified that she knew
Defendant and had previously seen Defendant driving a gray Volkswagen. Surveillance
footage from the gun store showed Defendant driving the gray Jetta with distinctive rims
when he purchased the rifle. The gray Jetta was parked outside Defendant’s home, and
he was driving the gray Jetta when stopped by APD. This evidence tied Defendant, not
another individual, to the gray Jetta and the shooting.

{13} Defendant was also closely linked to the rifle. The gun store clerk testified that
Defendant purchased the rifle and picked it up only a week and a half before the
shooting. The bullets and casings found at the crime scene matched Defendant’s rifle,
as did two shell casings found in Defendant’s gray Jetta and the bullet recovered from
Victim’s body. Moreover, Defendant’s rifle was found hidden under his bed. Therefore, it
was reasonable for the jury to infer that Defendant used his rifle to shoot Victim and
then hid it under his bed.

{14} Defendant’s phone also connected him to the murder. Cell phone data from
Defendant’s phone showed it was at or very near the murder scene. Additionally, the
phone travelled back to Defendant’s neighborhood immediately after the shooting.
Defendant’s phone also contained a note listing the date and time of the murder, as well
as the weapon used and what is, apparently, an autocorrected version of Victim’s name.
At trial the digital forensics expert testified that the phone was named “Syed’s iPhone”
and was linked to Defendant’s email address. She also explained that, based on her life
pattern analysis of the phones of Defendant and his family members, they did not share
phones. From these facts, the jury could reasonably infer it was Defendant who carried
his phone with him to the scene of the crime and it was Defendant who either planned
or documented the murder in the note app on his phone.

{15} Defendant’s behavior after the shooting also provided the jury with substantial
evidence that he, not a family member, was the shooter. The day after the media
circulated a photo of Defendant’s car, Defendant left Albuquerque. When stopped, he
was driving the gray Jetta but the distinctive hubcaps and matching license plate had
been removed. Defendant’s map app was actively providing him with directions to
Texas. From this evidence the jury could reasonably infer Defendant was trying to avoid
suspicion by disguising his car and avoid arrest by fleeing the state. They could
conclude that Defendant’s behavior showed a guilty conscience indicating that he, and
not a family member, killed Victim. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the conviction, there was substantial evidence from which a jury could
reasonably infer Defendant shot Victim.

B. Deliberate Intent

{16} To convict Defendant for first-degree willful and deliberate murder, the jury had to
find Defendant acted with deliberate intent. The jury was instructed that

A deliberate intention refers to the state of mind of the defendant. A
deliberate intention may be inferred from all of the facts and
circumstances of the killing. The word deliberate means arrived at or
determined upon as a result of careful thought and the weighing of the
consideration for and against the proposed course of action. A calculated
judgment and decision may be arrived at in a short period of time.

UJI 14-201 NMRA. Defendant argues that the State did not present evidence of motive
or any other evidence of Defendant’s state of mind, so, in coming to a guilty verdict, the
jury engaged in speculation or stacked inferences. We disagree. Often, the jury must
rely on circumstantial evidence. See Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 53 (“Intent is
subjective and is almost always inferred from other facts in the case, as it is rarely
established by direct evidence.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Circumstantial evidence can provide sufficient evidence of deliberate intent. See Rojo,
1999-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 23-24 (concluding from circumstantial evidence that there was
sufficient evidence of deliberate intent). And while motive can provide evidence of a
defendant’s state of mind, we have held that motive is not necessary to show deliberate
intent. See State v. Thomas, 2016-NMSC-024, ¶¶ 38-39, 376 P.3d 184.

{17} The State did not provide evidence of Defendant’s motive but it did provide
substantial evidence as to Defendant’s state of mind. The note in Defendant’s phone
described the shooting as a “test.” The word “test” indicates deliberation and planning. A
reasonable jury could infer that Defendant planned the shooting and either described
his plan in his phone before the shooting or documented the planned “test” afterward.

{18} Additionally, we have held that intent can be inferred from the manner in which
the victim was killed. See State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶¶ 22, 24, 147 N.M. 542,
226 P.3d 641 (concluding that lying in wait for the victim provided evidence of the
defendant’s deliberate intent), overruled on other grounds by State v. Martinez, 2021-
NMSC-002, ¶ 87, 478 P.3d 880; State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-027, ¶ 29, 284 P.3d 1076
(concluding that evidence of “overkill” supported conviction for willful and deliberate
murder); State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 28, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176
(concluding that evidence victim was shot while incapacitated supported first-degree
murder conviction). Defendant picked up the murder weapon from the gun store only
eleven days before the shooting. Cell phone data showed Defendant arrived in Victim’s
neighborhood well before Victim and waited in the neighborhood until Victim arrived
home. There was evidence—Victim’s warm car hood and his key fob—which indicated
that Victim was shot immediately upon arriving at home. From these facts a jury could
reasonably infer Defendant planned to kill Victim ahead of time, waited for Victim to
come home from work, and shot Victim right when he arrived home.

{19} Additionally, Victim was shot eleven times with a high-powered AK-47 rifle from a
distance of only twenty feet. He was shot twice after he had fallen to the ground. Based
on the short distance from which Defendant shot Victim, the weapon Defendant used,
the large number of shots fired, and the shooting of Victim even after he had fallen
down, the jury could reasonably infer Defendant deliberately killed Victim.

{20} Citing State v. Slade, Defendant argues that owning a gun and firing multiple
shots cannot provide sufficient evidence of intent. 2014-NMCA-088, ¶¶ 27, 35, 331 P.3d
930. But the Court of Appeals in Slade acknowledged that, “although each component
may be insufficient to support the conviction when viewed alone, they may form
substantial . . . support for the conviction when viewed as a whole.” Id. ¶ 21 (brackets,
internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see also Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 24
(considering the “totality of the evidence”). Looking at the totality of the evidence in this
case, the State provided more evidence of intent beyond the fact that Defendant owned
the rifle and fired eleven shots. As already noted, the manner in which Victim was killed
and the note in Defendant’s phone provide strong evidence of intent. Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, there was substantial evidence
from which a reasonable jury could find Defendant guilty of first degree willful and
deliberate murder.

IV. CONCLUSION

{21} We affirm the judgment and sentence.

{22} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice
WE CONCUR:

JULIE J. VARGAS, Chief Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice