AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 charged with simple battery after allegedly punching his sister-in-law in the mouth on August 4, 1995. The incident occurred after a new statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-3-15, which created the specific offense of "battery against a household member," had come into effect on July 1, 1995. However, the Defendant was prosecuted under the general battery statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-3-4 (paras 2-3, 7).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court, April 17, 1996: The Defendant was convicted of simple battery under NMSA 1978, § 30-3-4, and sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 130 days suspended (para 3).
• District Court, (N/A): The Defendant appealed, arguing he was entitled to a trial de novo in district court. The district court affirmed the metropolitan court's judgment, holding that the Defendant had failed to preserve his argument for a trial de novo (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was entitled to a trial de novo in district court because he was convicted under the general battery statute, not the specific "battery against a household member" statute. He also contended that he had adequately preserved this issue for appeal (paras 2-3, 7).
• State-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant was not entitled to a trial de novo because the offense involved domestic violence, which required an on-record appeal under NMSA 1978, § 34-8A-6(C). The State also argued that the Defendant waived his right to a trial de novo by failing to raise the issue earlier and by not requesting a trial date in a timely manner (paras 6, 17).

Legal Issues

• Was the Defendant entitled to a trial de novo in district court after being convicted of simple battery in metropolitan court?
• Did the Defendant waive his right to a trial de novo by failing to raise the issue earlier or by not requesting a trial date in a timely manner?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for a trial de novo in district court (para 21).

Reasons

Per Hartz CJ (Pickard and Wechsler JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the Defendant was entitled to a trial de novo because he was convicted under the general battery statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-3-4, rather than the specific "battery against a household member" statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-3-15. The latter statute, which became effective on July 1, 1995, required the State to prosecute cases involving household members under its provisions. Failure to do so meant the offense could not be classified as "involving domestic violence" for purposes of limiting appeals to on-record review (paras 7-9, 14-16).

• The Court applied the "general/specific" rule, which mandates that when a specific statute applies, the prosecution must proceed under that statute rather than a general one. This principle was supported by precedents such as State v. Blevins and State v. Riley (paras 8-12).

• The Court rejected the State's argument that the Defendant waived his right to a trial de novo. It found no evidence that the Defendant acknowledged a limitation on his appellate rights, nor was there any obligation for him to raise the issue in metropolitan court. Additionally, while the Defendant's request for a trial date was untimely, this alone did not justify dismissal of his appeal (paras 17-20).

• The Court concluded that the Defendant's conviction for simple battery entitled him to a trial de novo in district court, as the type of appeal is determined by the offense of conviction, not the nature of the proceedings in metropolitan court (paras 16, 21).