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 an incident where he and others fired at Santa Fe police officers, injuring at least one officer. The Defendant was accused of shooting Detective Mascarenas, who testified that the Defendant pointed a gun at him and fired, hitting him in the calf. The Defendant claimed the gun discharged accidentally when he slipped and denied any intent to harm (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Santa Fe County: The Defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit a violent felony (murder) and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to three years plus a one-year firearm enhancement for each count. The trial court rejected the Defendant's argument that the sentences violated double jeopardy protections (paras 4-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that sentencing for both assault with intent to commit a violent felony (murder) and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the two offenses arose from the same conduct and one offense subsumed the other (paras 1, 4, 8).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the two offenses were distinct under the Blockburger test and legislative intent, as each required proof of an element the other did not, and thus separate punishments were permissible (paras 1, 7, 10-11).
Legal Issues
- Whether sentencing the Defendant for both assault with intent to commit a violent felony (murder) and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon violated the Double Jeopardy Clause (para 1).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that sentencing for both offenses did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause (para 14).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Apodaca C.J. and Pickard J. concurring):
The Court applied the two-part test established in Swafford v. State to determine whether the convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. First, it agreed with the parties that the conduct underlying the two charges was unitary, as the gun was pointed and discharged in one motion (paras 5-6).
Second, the Court analyzed legislative intent using the Blockburger test and other indicia. It found that each offense required proof of an element the other did not: assault with intent to commit murder required proof of the victim's reasonable belief of imminent harm and intent to kill, while aggravated battery required proof of actual injury and use of a deadly weapon (paras 7-10). The Court also determined that the statutes addressed distinct social harms—assault focused on mental harm and intent to kill, while battery addressed physical harm and intent to injure (paras 11-12).
The Court concluded that the legislature intended to punish these offenses separately and that the rule of lenity did not apply. Therefore, sentencing for both offenses was permissible (paras 13-14).