Police say a surviving cousin described the fistfight, separated the men and later showed investigators messages sent after Nathaniel Cavazos was shot.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — The murder case against Ervin Joaquin Gutierrez rests in significant part on an eyewitness who told Albuquerque police he watched a family dinner argument become a fistfight, removed one gun from the confrontation and then saw Gutierrez allegedly shoot Nathaniel Cavazos as the 25-year-old walked away.
The witness was not a stranger who happened upon the scene. He was another relative who had spent the afternoon with both men, according to the criminal complaint described in local reporting. His account gave detectives a beginning-to-end narrative of the gathering at the Copper Hills apartments, from a grocery trip and green chile enchiladas to the physical confrontation and fatal gunfire. He also provided police with Snapchat messages investigators attributed to Gutierrez after the shooting, adding a second form of evidence to the witness statement.
Those messages introduce a question likely to matter as the prosecution develops: what Gutierrez believed at the moment he fired. In communications shown to detectives, Gutierrez expressed regret and indicated that he believed Cavazos had threatened his life, according to the complaint. Police challenged that explanation. Investigators wrote that Cavazos was described as unarmed and walking away when he was shot. They also cited the relative sizes of the two men when discussing Gutierrez’s stated fear. None of those investigative conclusions amounts to a verdict, and Gutierrez has not been convicted.
The events began hours before the shooting. Gutierrez, 22, traveled from Roswell to Albuquerque and visited Cavazos and their other relative, according to court-record reporting. The three went to a grocery store, returned to the apartment and cooked green chile enchiladas while consuming alcohol. Their surviving cousin told police there was no conflict at first. The dispute emerged at the table when Gutierrez complained that the chile served to him seemed hotter than what Cavazos and the other man were eating.
Gutierrez repeatedly pressed the issue, according to the witness. Cavazos responded that they had prepared the same enchiladas and therefore should have had the same chile. The third man suggested walking a dog in an attempt to defuse the dispute. Instead, the disagreement continued until Cavazos punched Gutierrez and a fistfight began. The witness said Cavazos eventually gained the upper hand before he stepped between them and broke up the fight.
A critical detail followed. During the struggle, a handgun belonging to Cavazos fell to the ground, according to the criminal complaint. The witness told investigators he picked it up and placed it in his pocket. That meant, under the state’s account, Cavazos’ firearm was no longer in his possession when the men separated. Prosecutors could view that fact as important to any claim that Gutierrez believed he faced an immediate armed threat. The defense, however, will be able to contest the witness account, the interpretation of the confrontation and any conclusions drawn from the sequence.
Police say Cavazos began walking away. Gutierrez was bleeding from injuries suffered in the fight. The witness described Gutierrez producing a second handgun and confronting Cavazos about what had happened between them. Investigators allege he then fired multiple rounds. Published accounts based on the complaint say Cavazos was struck as he was moving away. Officers responding to the apartment complex found him outside and unable to be revived. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
The surviving cousin tried to intervene again after the gunfire, according to the complaint, but Gutierrez left before police arrived. Investigators then had to evaluate not only the witness’s recollection but the physical scene, the location of the weapons and the electronic messages that followed. In one communication quoted in local reporting, Gutierrez asked whether Cavazos was really dead. He also wrote that he did not want to kill Cavazos but did not want Cavazos to kill him, according to investigators.
That statement does not by itself establish why the shooting occurred or whether a legal justification existed. Self-defense questions depend on the circumstances established through admissible evidence, including whether a threat was immediate and how a defendant reasonably perceived it. Police clearly signaled skepticism in the complaint. They emphasized the witness’s claim that Cavazos was unarmed, the allegation that he was withdrawing from the confrontation and the physical-size difference between the two men. A judge or jury may ultimately be asked to evaluate those points alongside the defense’s evidence.
Gutierrez did not remain missing for long. Albuquerque police said he turned himself in to officers in the downtown area while detectives continued investigating the killing. He was booked into the Metropolitan Detention Center and charged with an open count of murder. The Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office moved to keep him detained during the case, and a Sept. 4 court calendar listed him for a detention hearing while in jail.
The prosecution later announced that a judge had ordered Gutierrez to remain in custody. By Sept. 18, the matter had reached the Second Judicial District Court, where the criminal calendar listed State of New Mexico v. Ervin Joaquin Gutierrez for arraignment before Judge Matthew E. Chavez. The court record identified the case as D-202-CR-2026-03121 and showed that the public defender’s office represented Gutierrez at that stage.
Published reports are not completely uniform on the date of the shooting. Detailed local reporting based on the criminal complaint describes the killing as occurring Thursday, Aug. 27. Law&Crime later placed the dinner on Aug. 28. Other core details are consistent: Gutierrez and Cavazos were together with another relative, alcohol and green chile enchiladas were part of the gathering, the men fought, Cavazos moved away and police allege Gutierrez fired the fatal shots.
The food dispute has made the case unusually memorable, but investigators’ evidence focuses on what happened after the argument became physical. Whether Gutierrez complained about hotter chile explains the reported starting point; it does not resolve the criminal charge. The more important evidentiary questions concern who was armed, whether the fistfight had ended, the distance and direction of the men as the shots were fired, Gutierrez’s state of mind and whether the eyewitness account is corroborated by physical or digital evidence.
The witness occupies an especially important position because his account addresses each stage. He was there during the meal, attempted to calm the dispute, said he broke up the fight, took possession of Cavazos’ gun, described Cavazos walking away, said he saw Gutierrez fire and later gave police access to messages sent afterward. Defense lawyers can test his recollection, credibility and consistency through the normal court process. Prosecutors, in turn, can seek to support his account with forensic and electronic evidence.
As of Oct. 20, publicly indexed court materials reviewed for this report did not show a final resolution of the murder charge. Gutierrez therefore remains legally presumed innocent unless and until guilt is established. Cavazos is dead, Gutierrez remains the accused defendant, and the surviving cousin’s description of the final minutes of their family gathering stands at the center of the state’s account of how the night turned fatal.
Author note: Last updated October 20, 2026.