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 involved in a high-speed vehicle chase followed by a foot chase with law enforcement officers. During the encounter, the Defendant allegedly resisted arrest and bit an officer on the inner thigh. The officer used various methods to restrain the Defendant, who continued to resist despite being pushed to the ground (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, Rio Arriba County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of battery upon a peace officer, aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, and improper turning movements and required signals.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense and a lesser included offense of resisting, evading, and obstructing an officer. Also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated fleeing, as the State did not prove compliance with the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act (paras 2-3).
• Appellee (State): Argued that the officer's use of force was not excessive and that the evidence supported the conviction for battery. Contended that the Defendant's actions during the encounter justified the charges and that compliance with the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act was not an essential element of aggravated fleeing (paras 5-14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's request for a jury instruction on self-defense.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's request for a jury instruction on resisting, evading, and obstructing an officer as a lesser included offense of battery upon a peace officer.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated fleeing (paras 2-14).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for battery upon a peace officer and aggravated fleeing (para 15).

Reasons

Per Henderson J. (Hanisee and Wray JJ. concurring):

• The court found that the officer's use of force was not excessive, as the Defendant continued to resist arrest, and the officer's actions were proportional to the circumstances. The Defendant failed to provide evidence that would allow reasonable minds to differ on whether the force was excessive, thus the self-defense instruction was not warranted (paras 5-6).
• The court concluded that the Defendant was not entitled to a lesser included offense instruction because the evidence did not support a rational jury finding of resisting without also finding battery. The act of biting the officer was not sufficiently in dispute to warrant the lesser included offense instruction (paras 10-13).
• The court held that compliance with the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act is not an essential element of aggravated fleeing, and thus the State was not required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction for aggravated fleeing was supported by sufficient evidence (para 14).