A civil fight over the victims’ money adds a separate legal issue to allegations that expected inheritance motivated the deaths.
CLOVIS, N.M. — An allegation that Darren Munoz wanted his father’s money sits at the center of a New Mexico double-murder prosecution, but months before a jury hears the criminal case, the deaths of Oscar and Dina Munoz have already created a separate dispute over who may legally receive money from their estates.
A credit union asked a Curry County court this year to take custody of just under $65,000 held in accounts connected to Oscar and Dina Munoz while questions involving their estates are resolved. The filing acknowledged that Darren Munoz, their son and stepson, could otherwise claim an interest in the funds, while also citing a New Mexico law that can block someone who intentionally kills another person from benefiting from that death. The civil dispute does not establish that Munoz killed either victim. That question belongs to the criminal courts, where he has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled for a January 2027 jury trial.
The unusual overlap between estate law and the criminal accusations reflects the motive prosecutors say drove the case. Investigators allege that Munoz believed he would receive substantial money and property if his father and stepmother were dead. They say he reached an agreement with friend Julio Zamora in which Zamora would kill the couple and later receive money. Prosecutors have charged Munoz with two counts of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and criminal solicitation. Zamora faces two first-degree murder counts and a conspiracy charge. Both remain in custody without bond.
The amount at issue in the credit union case should not be confused with the fortune investigators say Munoz expected. An arrest affidavit says a witness told police that Munoz believed his father owned the Allsup’s convenience-store franchise and that money would pass to him after his father’s death. Other reporting identified Oscar Munoz as a regional manager for the convenience-store company. Authorities have not established publicly that Darren Munoz’s understanding of his father’s wealth or ownership was correct. For the criminal case, prosecutors can argue that an alleged belief about future money supplied a motive even if that belief did not accurately reflect the estate’s actual value.
Oscar Munoz, 58, and Dina Munoz, 71, were discovered after police responded to their Clovis home on Dec. 15, 2025. Their son had reported a possible burglary. According to the arrest affidavit, Darren Munoz met an officer and was hesitant when police sought to enter the house to check on his parents. Officers eventually found Dina Munoz dead and Oscar Munoz critically wounded. Oscar was taken to a hospital and later died. The investigation soon turned toward Darren Munoz after detectives said parts of his account did not match conditions at the home.
Police reported that there were no signs of forced entry at other doors or windows and no property apparently taken. Munoz told investigators that he had been asleep and woke after hearing a garage alarm, according to the affidavit. Detectives questioned his claim because the alarm was farther away than the bedroom where the shootings occurred. Those observations prompted further questioning, but the investigation expanded substantially only after officers spoke with people close to Munoz and began receiving information about an alleged plan that predated the deaths.
One acquaintance told a Clovis police sergeant that discussions about killing Oscar and Dina Munoz had been underway for weeks or months, the affidavit says. Investigators said Darren Munoz’s girlfriend later described money as the reason for the plan and told police Zamora expected to be paid after Munoz received funds. The affidavit also describes earlier discussions about different ways the couple might be killed. Those allegations are part of police and witness accounts that prosecutors may seek to use at trial. They have not yet been tested through a completed jury proceeding.
The financial theory is only one part of the evidence the state says connects the defendants. Investigators reported finding communications between Munoz and Zamora on Munoz’s phone around the time Oscar and Dina Munoz were returning home. Police say the messages included information about whether the couple had arrived and when they were expected. Security footage also allegedly showed Darren Munoz carrying a pistol during the hours before the shootings. The state is expected to use those records to argue that the events were coordinated rather than the work of an unidentified burglar.
Authorities say the case against Zamora includes his own statements to police. Officers arrested him later on Dec. 15 and reported finding a 9 mm handgun in his possession. According to the affidavit, Zamora had been advised of his Miranda rights before allegedly telling investigators that Darren Munoz asked him to kill the couple. Police also said he identified the recovered gun as the firearm used in the deaths. At a later detention hearing, prosecutors presented evidence concerning the weapon and statements attributed to Zamora. The court ordered both young men held without bond.
The estate proceeding developed while the criminal cases were still months from trial. According to reporting on court records, Cannon Federal Credit Union sought to deposit the account funds with the court so it would not have to decide among potential claimants while the underlying issues remained unresolved. Representatives for the estates acknowledged the criminal charges and the relevance of the state’s slayer statute. The law’s appearance in the civil case does not bypass the need for proof. It instead creates a legal mechanism for addressing property when a potential beneficiary is accused of intentionally causing the death from which a benefit might arise.
That means the same alleged motive is operating differently in two court systems. In the criminal prosecution, expected inheritance is evidence prosecutors may use to explain why they believe the killings were planned. In the estate matter, the question is whether and when a person with a possible financial interest can receive property while serious allegations remain unresolved. The criminal jury will not be asked simply whether Munoz hoped to inherit money. Prosecutors must prove the charged killings, conspiracy and solicitation under the standards that apply to each count.
The defendants also will not reach that stage on the same schedule. Darren Munoz’s jury selection is set for Jan. 25, 2027, after a reported Jan. 7 court appearance. Zamora is scheduled for a Dec. 14 court date, followed by jury selection beginning June 21. The separation means evidence about an alleged joint plan could be considered by different juries at different times and in the context of the specific charges against each defendant. Trial schedules remain subject to court changes before proceedings begin.
Until then, the estate funds and the criminal accusations remain legally distinct. Darren Munoz has not been convicted of intentionally killing Oscar or Dina Munoz, and neither a police affidavit nor an estate filing substitutes for a verdict. He and Zamora remain jailed as the criminal cases move forward. The first jury is currently expected to be seated in January, when prosecutors will begin the process of trying to prove that the expectation of future money was not merely conversation but part of a plan that led to two deaths.
Author note: Last updated September 28, 2026.