This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
On May 9, 2019, a law enforcement officer observed the Defendant driving erratically, leading to a police chase. During the pursuit, Sergeant Warren set up a spike strip to stop the Defendant's van. The Defendant approached at high speed and veered towards Sergeant Warren, missing him by less than a foot. This incident led to the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault on Sergeant Warren (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- District Court: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault on Sergeant Warren (para 5).
- State v. Johnson, A-1-CA-39266 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2023): The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence of Sergeant Warren's belief that he was about to be battered (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Petitioner: Argued that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Sergeant Warren actually believed he was about to be hit by the Defendant's van, citing testimony from Sergeant Warren and other officers (paras 10-12).
- Defendant-Respondent: Contended that the evidence did not support Sergeant Warren's belief at the time of the incident, emphasizing that Sergeant Warren did not think the van was directed at him (para 11).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated assault on Sergeant Warren, specifically regarding his actual belief that he was about to be battered? (para 2)
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the conviction for aggravated assault on Sergeant Warren (para 2).
Reasons
Per Vargas J. (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Bacon, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the State presented ample evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Sergeant Warren actually believed he was in danger of being hit by the Defendant's van. This included testimony from Sergeant Warren about the van's proximity and speed, his physical reaction, and corroborating testimony from other officers. The Court emphasized that the jury's role is to assess the evidence, and appellate courts should defer to the jury's findings when there is substantial evidence supporting the verdict (paras 6-14).