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 convicted of aggravated assault and battery against a household member, specifically his mother. The incident occurred when the Defendant, appearing to be under the influence of drugs, grabbed a circular saw, held it near the victim's face, and threatened her while also grabbing her by the neck and hair. The victim testified that she feared for her safety during the incident.
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Convicted the Defendant of aggravated assault and battery against a household member and enhanced his sentence under the Habitual Offender Act.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his convictions for aggravated assault and battery against a household member violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, as they were based on the same conduct. Additionally, he contended that the habitual offender sentence enhancement was invalid because it relied on inadmissible evidence.
- State-Appellee: Asserted that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy because the two offenses required proof of different elements and addressed distinct social harms. The State also argued that the habitual offender enhancement was supported by sufficient evidence, including a prior Texas conviction and testimony from the Defendant's mother.
Legal Issues
- Did the Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault and battery against a household member violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
- Was the evidence presented sufficient to support the habitual offender sentence enhancement?
Disposition
- The Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault and battery against a household member were affirmed.
- The habitual offender sentence enhancement was reversed, and the case was remanded for re-sentencing.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Fry C.J. and Vanzi J. concurring):
-
Double Jeopardy: The Court applied a two-part test to determine whether the Defendant's convictions violated double jeopardy. Assuming the conduct was unitary, the Court found that the Legislature intended to impose separate punishments for aggravated assault and battery against a household member. Each offense required proof of at least one element that the other did not, and the statutes addressed distinct social harms: assault protects against fear, while battery addresses physical harm.
-
Habitual Offender Enhancement: The Court held that the State failed to meet its burden of proving the Defendant's prior conviction by a preponderance of the evidence. The copy of the prior Texas conviction was inadmissible because it was not certified, and the testimony of the Defendant's mother was vague and unreliable. The Court emphasized that the State must present admissible and credible evidence to support a habitual offender enhancement.
The Court affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentence enhancement and remanded the case for re-sentencing.