In a case filled with twists and turns, a New Mexico woman who shot and killed her ex-boyfriend inside her home now faces a murder charge after an initial voluntary manslaughter charge was dismissed.
Alejandra Romero, 29, initially faced a voluntary manslaughter charge after shooting and killing 39-year-old Javier Jimenez in August. Romero claimed Jimenez was breaking into her home.
The case took an unexpected turn when District Court Judge Ben Cross dismissed the voluntary manslaughter charge. Judge Cross ruled that Romero’s right to testify before the grand jury had been denied.
However, just five days later, prosecutors brought new charges against Romero, this time for murder. The prosecution alleges that “inconsistencies” were discovered in Romero’s initial account of the events leading up to Jimenez’s death.
Adding to the complexity of the case is the history between Romero and Jimenez. According to reports, Jimenez had a history of harassing and threatening Romero. He had been arrested multiple times for trespassing on her property and Romero was reportedly in the process of obtaining a restraining order against him at the time of his death.
To break down the legal intricacies of this case and provide expert insight, former New Mexico State Senator and current criminal defense attorney Lisa Turacco joined Law & Crime’s Sidebar podcast.
Turacco expressed surprise at the upgraded charge, stating that while she finds it “absolutely unbelievable,” it is unfortunately “believable because our criminal justice system does that.”
She went on to explain the distinctions between the charges, emphasizing that first-degree murder implies premeditation and carries a much steeper penalty than voluntary manslaughter, which suggests a crime of passion.
Turacco offered a possible explanation for the prosecution’s decision to upgrade the charge, speculating that they might be presenting the judge with a range of options – first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and self-defense – and leaving it to the court to determine the most appropriate charge based on the evidence presented.
The prosecution’s claim of “inconsistencies” in Romero’s story remains a point of contention. Turacco acknowledged that it’s not uncommon for individuals who have experienced trauma to provide additional or slightly different details in subsequent statements as they process the event.
She raised questions about the nature of these inconsistencies and how they came to light. Turacco speculated that discrepancies between Romero’s initial statement to police, captured on body camera footage, and subsequent statements might be at play.
The fact that Jimenez was inside Romero’s home at the time of the shooting further complicates the case. New Mexico is a “stand your ground” state, meaning residents have a legal right to protect themselves and their property with lethal force if they feel threatened. However, the presence of a history of alleged abuse and threats from Jimenez adds another layer of complexity to the self-defense argument.
Turacco highlighted the significance of the restraining order Romero was seeking, noting that it demonstrates a real and documented fear of Jimenez. She questioned whether the prosecution’s theory of a premeditated murder aligns with the known facts of the case.
As this complex case continues to unfold, the question remains: Was this a calculated act of murder or a desperate act of self-defense by a woman living in fear?
