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 involved in a physical altercation with several individuals and threatened one of them with two knives. These actions led to charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (paras headnotes, [MIO 1]).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lea County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by (1) limiting voir dire to fifteen minutes, which allegedly denied him a fair trial, and (2) refusing to instruct the jury on disorderly conduct as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (paras [MIO 2-7]).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the district court acted within its discretion in limiting voir dire and that the Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice. Further argued that the evidence did not support an instruction on disorderly conduct as the highest degree of crime committed (paras [MIO 2-7]).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion by limiting voir dire to fifteen minutes?
- Was the Defendant entitled to a jury instruction on disorderly conduct as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions (headnotes, [MIO 1]).
Reasons
Per Fry CJ. (Robles and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
Limitation on Voir Dire:
The Court held that the district court has discretion to limit voir dire and is not required to allow a specific amount of time for examination of prospective jurors. The Defendant failed to show that the time limitation prejudiced his case or that the time allotted to him was different from that given to the State. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion (paras [MIO 2-4]).
Lesser Included Offense Instruction:
The Court found that while disorderly conduct may be a lesser included offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, the Defendant did not provide evidence or testimony from the trial record to support a finding that disorderly conduct was the highest degree of crime committed. Without such evidence, the Defendant was not entitled to the requested jury instruction. The Court emphasized that it is the appellant’s burden to provide a sufficient record for review (paras [MIO 4-7]).
For these reasons, the Court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.