Darren Munoz and Julio Zamora face separate 2027 proceedings in the deaths of Oscar and Dina Munoz.

CLOVIS, N.M. — Two 19-year-old defendants accused of taking part in a plan to kill one defendant’s father and stepmother for anticipated inheritance money are scheduled to face separate juries in 2027, moving a double-homicide case that began with a reported burglary toward two major trials.

Darren Munoz is scheduled for jury selection beginning Jan. 25, 2027, while co-defendant Julio Zamora is scheduled for jury selection June 21, according to court-record reporting. Prosecutors accuse Munoz of arranging the deaths of his father, Oscar Steve Munoz, 58, and his stepmother, Dina Munoz, 71, and accuse Zamora of carrying out the shootings. Darren Munoz has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. Both defendants remain jailed without bond, and the allegations have not been proven at trial.

The separate dates create the next major stage in a case that has developed through arrest affidavits, detention hearings, phone evidence and witness accounts since Dec. 15, 2025. Darren Munoz faces two counts of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and criminal solicitation to commit murder. Zamora faces two counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Prosecutors will have to prove the charges against each defendant individually even though investigators have described the deaths as the result of a common plan.

Police were first sent to the Munoz home after Darren Munoz reported what appeared to be a burglary. According to the arrest affidavit, he met an officer outside or near the garage and initially said things had been fine. When the officer wanted to check on his parents, investigators said Munoz hesitated and offered an unusual explanation for why he did not want police to enter. He eventually led officers inside. Dina Munoz was found dead in a bedroom, and Oscar Munoz was critically wounded. He was taken for medical treatment and later died.

Investigators said the apparent burglary account quickly drew scrutiny. According to the affidavit, Darren Munoz said he had been sleeping and was awakened by an alarm connected to the garage. Detectives questioned how he could have heard an alarm farther from his room but not the gunfire near where he said he had been sleeping. Police also reported finding no signs of forced entry elsewhere and no missing property that would support the original burglary explanation. Those observations became part of the probable-cause case against him rather than findings by a trial jury.

The investigation changed direction further when police began interviewing people who knew the defendants. An acquaintance contacted a Clovis police sergeant and reported that a plan to kill Oscar and Dina Munoz had allegedly been discussed for weeks or months, according to the affidavit. Investigators said the reported objective was to gain control of the couple’s belongings or finances. Darren Munoz’s girlfriend also told police that he wanted his father’s money and that Zamora had agreed to participate in return for payment after Munoz received money, the affidavit states.

Authorities have described that alleged financial motive cautiously because the size and nature of any inheritance anticipated by Darren Munoz were not established by the criminal allegations. The affidavit says Munoz believed his father owned the Allsup’s convenience-store business and expected money after his father died. Separate local reporting identified Oscar Munoz as a regional manager for the convenience-store company rather than its owner. That distinction matters because the prosecution’s allegation concerns what Darren Munoz allegedly believed and intended, not whether his understanding of the family’s finances was accurate.

Investigators also cited digital evidence in building the case. A search of Darren Munoz’s phone allegedly revealed communications with Zamora as Oscar and Dina Munoz were returning home. According to the affidavit, Munoz told Zamora that his parents were not yet home and indicated he would pass along information about their return. Authorities also said home-security footage showed Darren Munoz with a pistol hours before the killings. Those records are among the pieces of evidence likely to receive close scrutiny when the cases reach juries.

The state’s case against Zamora includes statements that investigators say he made after his arrest. Police said Zamora was taken into custody later on Dec. 15 while possessing a black-and-gold 9 mm handgun without a conventional serial number. According to the arrest affidavit and later detention-hearing reporting, Zamora told investigators after receiving a Miranda warning that Darren Munoz had asked him to kill Oscar and Dina Munoz. Police also said Zamora identified the firearm found with him as the gun used in the shootings. Any statement offered at trial would remain subject to the rules of evidence and challenges available to the defense.

Evidence discussed during December 2025 detention proceedings went beyond the defendants’ alleged statements. Prosecutors presented testimony from responding officers and referred to social-media material involving Darren Munoz and a firearm. Court documents also described a photograph of the weapon police believed was connected to the homicides, with investigators saying the same gun was later located with Zamora. The judge ordered both defendants held without bond after concluding that the evidence presented at that stage supported detention. A detention ruling does not determine guilt, and the burden at trial will remain on prosecutors.

The financial allegations have also produced consequences outside the criminal cases. In March, a credit union filed a civil action concerning accounts belonging to Oscar and Dina Munoz that totaled just under $65,000, according to local reporting on Curry County court records. The filing sought permission to place the money into the court registry while competing interests were resolved. The records referenced New Mexico’s so-called slayer statute, which can prevent a person who intentionally kills someone from benefiting from that person’s estate. The civil proceeding does not establish that Darren Munoz committed the charged crimes.

That distinction is especially important as the case approaches trial. Prosecutors have assembled an account involving an alleged financial motive, witness statements, electronic communications, security footage, a firearm and statements attributed to Zamora. Defense lawyers will have the opportunity to challenge the reliability, admissibility and meaning of that material. Jurors, rather than police, prosecutors or judges who handled preliminary matters, will ultimately be asked to decide whether the state has proved each charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendants are not scheduled to be tried together on the dates currently reported. Darren Munoz’s proceeding is set first, with jury selection Jan. 25 and a court appearance reported for Jan. 7. Zamora has a court date listed for Dec. 14 before his June trial. Those schedules could still be changed by later court orders. As of the latest reporting, both defendants remain in custody without bond while their cases proceed toward the separate 2027 jury trials.

Author note: Last updated September 28, 2026.