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 and the victim, who were married but separated, were involved in a violent altercation at the Defendant's trailer. The Defendant physically assaulted the victim, including choking her with a cord, hitting her foot with a baseball bat, and sexually assaulting her. The victim sustained multiple injuries, including a broken foot, ligature marks on her neck, and a vaginal abrasion. The Defendant also confined the victim in the bedroom for a period of time after the assault (paras 2-8).
Procedural History
- District Court, Sandoval County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, second-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP II), and false imprisonment.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the jury instructions on aggravated battery with a deadly weapon were improper, (2) his convictions for attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and CSP II violated double jeopardy as they were based on the same injuries, and (3) the false imprisonment conviction should be set aside as it was not separate from the CSP II charge (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the jury instructions were proper, the convictions did not violate double jeopardy, and there was sufficient evidence to support the false imprisonment conviction as a separate offense (paras 9-20).
Legal Issues
- Were the jury instructions on aggravated battery with a deadly weapon improper?
- Did the Defendant's convictions for attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and CSP II violate the prohibition against double jeopardy?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for false imprisonment as a separate offense?
Disposition
- The conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon was reversed and remanded for a new trial due to improper jury instructions (para 21).
- The convictions for attempted first-degree murder, CSP II, and false imprisonment were affirmed (para 21).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Wechsler and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Jury Instructions on Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon: The jury instructions improperly directed the jury to conclude that the baseball bat was a deadly weapon, removing this determination from the jury's consideration. Following precedent in State v. Bonham and State v. Montano, the court held that whether the baseball bat constituted a deadly weapon should have been left to the jury. The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial on this charge (paras 9-11).
Double Jeopardy: The court applied the Blockburger test and determined that each offense required proof of an element not required by the others. Attempted first-degree murder required intent to kill, aggravated battery required the use of a deadly weapon, and CSP II required proof of physical injury. The court found no legislative intent to prohibit separate punishments for these offenses, and thus, there was no double jeopardy violation (paras 12-19).
False Imprisonment: The court found sufficient evidence to support the false imprisonment conviction as a separate offense. The victim testified that the Defendant confined her in the bedroom for a period of time after the sexual assault, which constituted a distinct act of restraint beyond that inherent in the CSP II charge (para 20).