So ends one chapter in another tragic tale of late-night drunkenness in Santa Fe: Carlos Fierro, once a promising young lawyer working his way through the political system toward higher office, Friday was found guilty of vehicular homicide.

The bleary-drunk Fierro, on a late-November night last year, drove his high-priced car into local personality William Tenorio — and sped away before being caught a few blocks away. Tenorio died hours later.

Compounding the outrage was that his passenger was a state police officer — one so highly thought of that he was part of the governor's security detail. Sgt. Alfred Lovato still faces trial over his part in the incident.

Nothing in the verdict, and the proceedings to follow, will bring back Tenorio, a 46-year-old father of three. His family was a portrait of class throughout the proceedings — during which Fierro's defense attorneys threw everything procedural but the kitchen sink at District Attorney "Spence" Pacheco and her assistant, Juan Valencia.

It was about all the defense could do: put the victim on trial — and, for good measure, the prosecution. Under our system of justice, defense lawyers owe their utmost efforts on their clients' behalf — and Jason Bowles certainly gave that to Fierro. This case, from just days after the incident to Friday's verdicts, saw defense-bar aggression reach a new plateau.

But it went beyond that this week when it came to instructions to the jury — a process demanding honesty and openness between attorneys for the defendant and for the state. That includes a correct statement of the law.

Instead, the defense altered the uniform language about reasonable doubt that "the Defendant's act was a significant cause of death" to "the defendant's act was the significant cause."

A few lines later came what should have said, "If you find the negligence of a person other than the defendant was the only significant cause of death, then the Defendant is not guilty of the offense of homicide by vehicle." This was altered to say "the negligence of a person other than the Defendant was a significant cause of death."

In those words could have lain the difference between conviction and acquittal — so this wasn't mere mistaken choice of language, nor was it harmless tinkering with the law; it was a blatant attempt to mislead the jury.

Bowles angrily denies it — and the indignation is understandable: His behavior begs for a close look from the state bar.

According to state rules, "the uniform instruction must be used without substantive modification or substitution." Changes must be noted as such.

Pacheco was quick to acknowledge that she should have caught the trickery — and District Judge Michael Vigil admonished her for failing to do so. But the judge, too, was asleep at the switch — or at least relying, as Pacheco was, on the defense's honesty — and it took a note from the jurors themselves, saying they couldn't understand the instruction, to bring the deception to light. Vigil ordered the jury to get the correct version of the vehicular-homicide instruction — and with the right instruction in hand, the decision got easier.

Vigil, to his credit, denied a defense motion for a mistrial, even though he noted that the mess might be cause for a new trial. Bowles lost no time asking for it — and, for good measure, sought his client's freedom in the meantime. Sorry, said the judge; Fierro left in handcuffs for detention — and a community sickened by the scourge of dangerous drunks can — at least for now — breathe a sigh of relief.