This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon after allegedly attacking the Victim by hitting him twice, once with a bottle in a brown paper bag and again with a drinking glass. A neighbor testified to witnessing the attack, and a police officer reported that the Defendant appeared "happy and proud" after the incident (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction because the State failed to prove he did not act in self-defense. The Defendant also contended that video evidence disproved the Victim's version of events (paras 2 and 5).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon?
- Did the State fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self-defense?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon (para 6).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Medina and Henderson JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The jury instructions required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self-defense. The Court emphasized that appellate courts review sufficiency of the evidence from a highly deferential standpoint, resolving all conflicts and making all permissible inferences in favor of the jury's verdict. The Court declined to reweigh the evidence or consider video evidence that the Defendant argued disproved the Victim's account, as it is the jury's role to resolve conflicts in testimony and determine credibility. The Court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the Defendant committed aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and did not act in self-defense (paras 2-5).