Police say inconsistencies at a family home helped shift the investigation toward the victims’ son and one of his friends.
CLOVIS, N.M. — The prosecution of Darren Munoz and Julio Zamora began with a call reporting someone inside a Clovis home, but investigators say what first appeared to be a possible burglary soon became an inquiry into whether the caller and a friend had arranged the killings themselves.
More than nine months after Oscar Steve Munoz and Dina Munoz were found fatally wounded, that change in investigative direction is leading toward two separate jury trials. Darren Munoz, 19, is scheduled for jury selection Jan. 25, 2027. Zamora, also 19, is scheduled to face jury selection June 21. Prosecutors allege that Darren Munoz wanted access to money he expected after his father’s death and that Zamora agreed to kill the couple. Those allegations remain unproven, and Darren Munoz has pleaded not guilty.
The first hours of the investigation are central to the state’s narrative. Police responding on Dec. 15, 2025, encountered Darren Munoz at the home after the burglary report. The arrest affidavit says he initially told an officer that everything had been fine. When the officer said he wanted to check on Munoz’s parents, Munoz expressed reluctance about letting him inside and said his parents slept without clothes. The officer eventually entered. Authorities found Dina Munoz, 71, dead in a bedroom and Oscar Munoz, 58, critically wounded. Oscar Munoz later died after being taken for treatment.
Rather than accepting the burglary report at face value, officers began comparing Darren Munoz’s account with what they observed inside and around the residence. He told investigators he had gone to sleep after his parents returned from a trip and later woke after hearing an alarm associated with the garage. Police said they questioned why he could hear that alarm from across the home but not the shootings closer to his bedroom. Investigators also said they found neither forced entry at another access point nor missing possessions that would ordinarily support the claim that an intruder had entered to steal property.
Police then moved outward from the physical scene and began interviewing people in Munoz’s social circle. His girlfriend told investigators she had stayed at the house over the weekend while Oscar and Dina Munoz were away and had left Sunday morning. During that phase of the inquiry, another acquaintance contacted police and described what she said was a plan involving Darren Munoz, Zamora and another friend. According to the affidavit, she said discussions about killing the couple had been taking place for weeks or months. Her account transformed the investigation from one focused on an unknown intruder to one examining people already connected to the household.
The girlfriend’s later account supplied what police described as a possible motive. According to investigators, she said Darren Munoz wanted money belonging to his father and that Zamora had agreed to kill the couple in return for money after Munoz received it. The affidavit says Darren Munoz believed his father owned the Allsup’s convenience-store franchise. Local reporting has identified Oscar Munoz as a regional manager for the company, meaning the alleged plan may have been based at least partly on Darren Munoz’s own understanding of his father’s finances. Prosecutors have not publicly established that the expected fortune described in the alleged discussions actually existed.
By then, investigators also had begun examining phones, security video and firearms. Police said surveillance footage from the residence showed Darren Munoz with a handgun on the evening before the deaths. Investigators later searched his phone and reported finding a conversation with Zamora in which Munoz discussed when his parents would return home. According to the affidavit, Munoz indicated that his parents would tell him when they were on their way and that he would relay the information. Authorities interpreted those communications as evidence of coordination before the killings, though jurors will have to consider the context and significance of any messages admitted at trial.
Zamora’s arrest added another major part of the prosecution’s account. Officers apprehended him later that day and reported finding him with a black-and-gold 9 mm handgun made without a conventional serial number. Investigators said Zamora, after being advised of his rights, acknowledged that Darren Munoz had asked him to kill Oscar and Dina Munoz and identified the firearm as the weapon used in the crime. Court reporting from a later detention hearing similarly said documents described Zamora as admitting to the killings and telling police that Darren Munoz agreed to pay him. Those statements are allegations contained in the state’s evidence, not a jury verdict.
The defendants’ legal positions began separating as the case moved out of the investigative phase. Darren Munoz was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and criminal solicitation to commit murder. Zamora was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. A judge ordered both held without bond after detention hearings in December. Prosecutors presented responding officers and discussed a social-media video, an image of a firearm and the gun investigators said was later found with Zamora. The detention decision addressed pretrial custody, not whether either defendant was guilty.
The coming trials will therefore ask jurors to reassess a narrative that police began constructing within hours of the original 911 call. Evidence that investigators viewed as suspicious will have to be presented under trial rules, and defense attorneys can contest its meaning or seek to exclude material where legal grounds exist. A statement that appears inconsistent during an investigation is not itself proof of murder, and the prosecution must establish every element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The same principle applies to witness accounts about prior conversations and to electronic communications prosecutors contend show planning.
Separate civil proceedings have introduced another dimension to the alleged financial motive. Court-record reporting in March said Cannon Federal Credit Union sought to place just under $65,000 from accounts associated with Oscar and Dina Munoz into a court registry. The filing noted Darren Munoz’s potential interest in the estate and referenced New Mexico law restricting people who intentionally kill another person from benefiting from the victim’s estate. Because the criminal charges have not been adjudicated, the civil filing should not be read as a finding that Darren Munoz intentionally caused either death. It instead reflects the practical problem of handling estate assets while the criminal accusations remain unresolved.
The case now sits far beyond the uncertain circumstances officers encountered at the home that morning. Prosecutors say they have a combination of scene evidence, witness statements, digital records, firearm evidence and statements attributed to Zamora tying the two defendants to a common plan. The defense in each case will be able to challenge those assertions before separate juries. Darren Munoz’s trial is scheduled first in January, followed by Zamora’s in June, with both remaining held without bond while the courts prepare for proceedings that could test each part of the state’s account.
Author note: Last updated September 28, 2026.