'Warrior gene' defense slayed by NM Supreme Court
Feb. 26—SANTA FE, N.M. — The man convicted of murdering a 75-year-old Santa Fe man and then burning his body had his "warrior gene" defense rejected yet again by the New Mexico Supreme Court.
The New Mexico Supreme Court last week upheld Anthony Blas Yepez's 22 1/2 year sentence for the murder of George Ortiz in 2012.
Yepez was found guilty in 2015 by a Santa Fe jury for second-degree murder, evidence tampering and motor vehicle theft.
Yepez, 34, appealed his case on a warrior gene defense that wasn't allowed into evidence in his original trial by 1st Judicial District Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer. The judge ruled that there wasn't any evidence that demonstrates the warrior gene results in a predisposition towards aggressive behavior.
Yepez argued that he had a low-functioning MAO-A gene, dubbed the "warrior gene," which some studies show regulates impulsive, antisocial or aggressive behavior, according to previous reporting by the Journal.
Despite those studies, the scientific community hasn't uncovered conclusive evidence on the role the gene can play on impulsive violence control.
It was because of Marlowe Sommer's ruling, Yepez argued, that he should be granted a new trial with the warrior gene evidence allowed. However, the Supreme Court justices unanimously upheld Marlowe Sommer's ruling and rejected Yepez's arguments for a new trial.
In 2012, Yepez got into a fight with Ortiz after he allegedly struck his then-girlfriend Jeannie Ann Sandoval, according to court documents, and Ortiz ended up in a "pool of blood" on the floor. Yepez and Sandoval then poured cooking oil around Ortiz and lit him on fire. It was unclear is Ortiz was still alive when the fire was lit.
Sandoval pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 2014 for her role in Ortiz's death as part of a plea agreement that set her maximum sentence at nine years in prison.
The Supreme Court said Yepez's argument that he's predisposed to impulsive violence wasn't backed by reliable scientific knowledge. The high court said the scientific evidence presented by Yepez's expert witnesses talked about antisocial aggressive behavior, not impulsive violence.
Therefore, the court concluded there was a lack of scientific methodology supporting the conclusions the experts reached.
"We hold that evidence of mere genetic susceptibility to a given mental condition is not relevant on the issue of deliberate intent, at least in the absence of evidence that such susceptibility is so well understood and has such strong predictive value as to be clinically validated as an indicator of the mental condition," retired Justice Judith K. Nakamura wrote in the court's opinion.
Nakamura was Chief Justice when oral arguments were presented to the Supreme Court.
