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, a divorced father, was charged with battery against his 13-year-old daughter during a visit. The incident arose after a disagreement during a game of catch, escalating into physical contact. The Defendant claimed his actions were disciplinary, while the daughter alleged abusive behavior, including being struck and confined to a closet (paras 4-6).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: Found the Defendant guilty of battery against a household member (para 7).
- District Court: Affirmed the conviction on appeal (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his daughter did not meet the statutory definition of a "household member" under the Crimes Against Household Members Act (CAHMA) and that the trial court improperly excluded testimony from a neighbor, violating his due process rights (para 7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue of the "household member" definition for appeal, argued that the daughter qualified as a "household member," and defended the trial court's exclusion of the neighbor's testimony as proper (para 7).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant's minor daughter a "household member" under the statutory definition in the Crimes Against Household Members Act?
- Did the Defendant fail to preserve the issue of the "household member" definition for appellate review?
- Was the trial court's exclusion of the neighbor's testimony a violation of the Defendant's due process rights?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction (para 24).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Bustamante and Armijo JJ. concurring):
Preservation of the Issue: The Court held that the Defendant did not need to preserve the issue of the "household member" definition at trial because sufficiency of evidence can be raised for the first time on appeal. Convicting an innocent person constitutes fundamental error (paras 8-9).
Definition of "Household Member": The Court determined that the statutory definition of "household member" under CAHMA does not include minor children. The legislative history showed that the term "child" was intentionally excluded from the definition in CAHMA, even though it was included in related statutes. This omission was substantive and purposeful, reflecting the Legislature's intent to exclude children from the scope of CAHMA (paras 10-22).
Sufficiency of Evidence: Since the State failed to prove that the victim was a "household member" as defined by CAHMA, the conviction could not stand (para 23).
Exclusion of Testimony: The Court did not address the issue of the excluded testimony, as the conviction was reversed on other grounds (para 7).
Special Concurrence by Armijo J.:
- Judge Armijo agreed with the majority's conclusion but expressed concern about the practical implications of excluding children from CAHMA's protections. She emphasized the need for consistency in addressing family violence and refrained from speculating on the Legislature's reasons for omitting "child" from the definition (paras 26-27).