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 used a BB gun to coerce a victim, an employee of Wendy's, into handing over $2,544.17 in a Walmart parking lot. The Defendant pointed the BB gun, which resembled a handgun, at the victim's abdomen and demanded money. The victim complied, and the Defendant fled the scene. The BB gun was later determined to be unloaded, and the victim was not physically harmed (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Denied the Defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss the armed robbery charge, finding that the issue of whether the BB gun constituted a "deadly weapon" should be determined by a jury (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the BB gun, being unloaded and incapable of causing death or great bodily harm, did not meet the statutory definition of a "deadly weapon" and sought pre-trial dismissal of the armed robbery charge (paras 2-3, 9).
- State-Appellee: Contended that the BB gun's manner of use, including its resemblance to a handgun and the threat it posed to the victim, allowed a jury to reasonably determine it was a "deadly weapon" under the statutory definition (paras 3, 10-12).
Legal Issues
- Whether the use of an unloaded BB gun during a robbery satisfies the statutory definition of a "deadly weapon" under New Mexico law.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the armed robbery charge (para 14).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Pickard and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the determination of whether the BB gun constituted a "deadly weapon" was a factual issue for the jury to decide. The statutory definition of a "deadly weapon" includes objects capable of causing death or great bodily harm, depending on their character and manner of use. The BB gun, though not a firearm, could be considered a "deadly weapon" based on its use to threaten the victim and its resemblance to a handgun (paras 6-8).
The Court reasoned that: A jury could infer that the BB gun, even if unloaded, could have been used as a bludgeon to inflict harm (para 11). The victim's perception of the BB gun as a handgun and the fear it induced were consistent with legislative intent to enhance punishment for armed robbery (para 12). The Defendant's assertion that the BB gun was unloaded was not dispositive, as the jury could reasonably infer otherwise based on the circumstances (para 13).
The Court concluded that the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss, as the facts presented allowed for a jury determination on the "deadly weapon" issue (para 14).