A Jury Acquitted Clayton Benedict in James Porter’s Death
On March 27, 2026, the Albuquerque Journal reported that a jury acquitted former Uber driver Clayton Benedict in the 2019 shooting death of passenger James Porter.
The Journal’s headline and photo caption say not guilty of voluntary manslaughter. One sentence in that story says he was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter. KKOB’s March 30 report also says involuntary manslaughter. A March 26 Journal article said Benedict was charged with voluntary manslaughter. As of November 10, 2026, the reports do not use one charge name.
The Journal said it took jurors five hours to reach a verdict that ended a five-day trial. It said the case resolved seven years after the ride.
What did Benedict and the prosecutor tell the jury?
These are the trial accounts, as the Journal reported them. They are not a written finding from the jury.
The March 26 article says Porter was killed on St. Patrick’s Day, March 17, 2019. The March 27 story says attorneys told jurors the events began when Benedict picked up two intoxicated men at the Salt Yard, 6001 Osuna NE. The March 26 article says Benedict told jurors the pickup was the Salt Yards, at the same address. The Journal’s 2026 trial stories describe Porter as 27 and Benedict as 39.
In the March 26 article, Benedict testified that Porter’s companion, Jonathan Reyes, vomited in the back seat of Benedict’s Ford Focus. Benedict said he explained that Uber allows a clean-up fee. He said Porter insisted he could clean up the vomit. He said the argument escalated until he feared Porter might grab him.
Benedict testified that he pulled onto the shoulder of southbound Interstate 25 to end the ride. He said Porter became angry after Benedict objected to a slammed door. He said Porter ripped off clothing and came around the car with his fists clenched. He said his back was against the driver’s door, with traffic to his right. He said he unholstered a handgun.
Benedict testified that Porter walked into a lane of traffic and cars swerved. He said he used that moment to gain distance. He said Porter threatened to run him over. He said he fired when Porter began to get into the driver’s seat. The March 26 article quotes him: “Once he put his body into the car, I fired.” That article says he contended he fired six rounds, and that Porter died at the scene. The March 27 story says he testified that he fired multiple gunshots.
Prosecutor Guinevere Ice gave jurors a different account, the March 27 story says. She said Benedict could have driven away after the passengers got out. She said he stepped outside and chastised them for slamming the door. She said he escalated by pointing a gun at an unarmed man. She told jurors, “He created this entire situation.” She said Porter had a right to defend himself against lethal force.
Defense attorney Raymond Maestas told jurors that New Mexico law lets a person “stand your ground,” with no duty to retreat. He said, “The law puts no duty on Clayton (Benedict) to retreat.” He also said, “Not a shred of evidence exists that Clayton ever moved toward James Porter at all.” That is counsel’s argument to the jury.
How did the charge get to a jury?
The trial did not start in 2019. The March 27 story says years of appeals delayed it. It says a district court judge threw out a second-degree murder charge, then-Attorney General Hector Balderas appealed, and the Supreme Court later found that the lower court had acted correctly.
The New Mexico judiciary’s August 29, 2024 release describes the Supreme Court’s dispositional order in State v. Benedict, No. S-1-SC-39240. The order text was not confirmed on November 10, 2026. The release gives this charging history.
The release says the district court, after a preliminary hearing, found probable cause for voluntary manslaughter and not for second-degree murder. It says the Court of Appeals found probable cause for second-degree murder. It says the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals because the district court’s probable-cause determination was not an appealable final order. It says the Supreme Court ordered the district court to move forward on the voluntary manslaughter charge.
The release says prosecutors still had other avenues, including a grand jury indictment for second-degree murder. It says the district court did not dismiss the second-degree murder charge. It ordered a new charging document for voluntary manslaughter.
That is not the same sentence as the Journal’s report that the judge threw out the charge. Both lines are in the sources.
The release also summarizes preliminary-hearing testimony. That summary is not the 2026 trial. It says Benedict picked up Porter and a friend from a local bar. Both were intoxicated. The friend vomited. They argued over an Uber fee to clean up the car. When the friend appeared about to vomit again, Benedict pulled over on the Interstate 25 shoulder. All three got out. Porter allegedly threatened to run over Benedict with Benedict’s own car and was shot as he started to get into the front seat. The word “allegedly” is the release’s.
A Justia page lists the same case number. The order text on that page was not confirmed on November 10, 2026.
What did the jury decide?
The Journal reported the acquittal on March 27, 2026. KKOB reported it on March 30. KKOB said five hours of deliberation produced the verdict that ended a five day trial. The two reports do not use the same charge name.
The Second Judicial District calendar for March 25, 2026 lists the jury trial in State v. Clayton Thomas Benedict, No. D-202-CR-2019-02101. It is set for 9:00 a.m. before Judge Jennifer J. Wernersbach in Courtroom 416. Guinevere Ice is the prosecutor. Raymond Benito Maestas is the defense attorney. The comment line reads “5 DAYS; OUT OF CUSTODY.” The calendar does not name a charge. It does not record a verdict.
The reported result is an acquittal. The stories do not say the jury wrote a finding on each argument the lawyers made.
As of November 10, 2026, the Journal stories, the KKOB report, the judiciary release, and the March 25 calendar do not report a civil case or a civil disposition.
RideClaim.co is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
Which New Mexico policy applies after a rideshare accident?
App status can change which coverage applies. A free review does not estimate what a claim will pay. There is no cost and no obligation to hire anyone.


Comments
Comments are public. Please don't share private details about your own case here.