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 two counts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The incident involved the Defendant ignoring an officer's command to stop, resisting arrest, and fleeing from the scene, which led to a pursuit and eventual apprehension using a taser (paras 1, 4-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, Lea County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions, the district court erred by resetting the jury trial to allow the State's motion for reconsideration, and the denial of the motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights was incorrect (paras 2-3).
- Appellee: Contended that the officer was acting within the lawful discharge of duties, the motion for reconsideration was permissible, and the speedy trial rights were not violated (paras 4, 6, 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer?
- Did the district court err by resetting the jury trial to allow the State's motion for reconsideration?
- Did the district court err by denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of speedy trial rights?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, upholding the Defendant's convictions (para 10).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Medina C.J. and Henderson J. concurring):
- The Court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions, noting that the officer's actions were within the lawful discharge of duties, and the Defendant's knowledge of the officer's intent to apprehend was evident from the circumstances (paras 4-7).
- The Court held that the district court did not err in allowing the State's motion for reconsideration, as it was filed pretrial and was permissible under the rules, with no indication of gamesmanship (para 8).
- The Court concluded that the Defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated, as the factors did not weigh heavily against the State, and the Defendant failed to show particularized prejudice (para 9).