Jury deliberates in Lonnie Gallegos homicide trial over Amezquita loss of life

LAS CRUCES – Just a little greater than 20 minutes reportedly handed from the second Oscar Amezquita walked into his shoe restore store one night time in 2020 to the second police mentioned they discovered him on the ground with a minimum of one gunshot wound. 

It took about the identical size of time for District Decide Douglas Driggers to evaluation directions with the 12 jurors who will determine whether or not to convict Lonnie Gallegos, 40, of murdering Amezquita that night time. 

Amezquita visited the store that Saturday night two years in the past to drop off some objects he had simply bought, prosecutors say, when an intruder who had damaged into the store shot him. Days later, Gallegos was charged with first-degree homicide, aggravated housebreaking, illegal taking of a motorcar and tampering with proof. 

Amezquita, 79, was the proprietor of Landis Boot and Shoe Service on S. Esperanza Road, a enterprise he had inherited from his father. His obituary said that he was born in Las Cruces and raised within the Mesilla Park neighborhood, later serving within the U.S. Army Special Forces abroad earlier than he returned to his hometown and the household enterprise.

Gallegos’ trial opened on Monday — the second anniversary of Amezquita’s loss of life — and concluded Wednesday afternoon.

The state, led by assistant district legal professional Linzui Vergara, argued that Gallegos had damaged into the store and was within the midst of a housebreaking when Amezquita arrived, at which level it alleged Gallegos positioned himself and fired upon the store proprietor. 

Do not miss out on courts and crime information. Obtain the Las Cruces Solar-News app and at all times be within the know.

Prosecutors additionally argued that Gallegos stole Amezquita’s automobile utilizing keys he obtained from on the store, later parking it a few mile away and eradicating the license plate. 

Throughout closing arguments, public defender Raymond Conley, representing Gallegos, tore into the state’s case.

Reminding jurors that the state wanted to show Gallegos’ guilt past an affordable doubt, Conley questioned why the state had not introduced forensic proof in court docket as a part of its case and argued that the DA’s workplace was counting on conjecture to assemble a story of what occurred that night time. 

After receiving its directions Wednesday afternoon, the jury proceeded to deliberate for an hour and a half earlier than requesting to recess for the night. They returned Thursday morning and continued to pore over the proof into the afternoon.