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

• On a dark night in September 2015, a physical altercation occurred between the Defendant and Deputy Brandon Switzer, following a dispatch to a residence in Chamberino, New Mexico, regarding a disorderly, intoxicated person. The Defendant matched the suspect's description and, upon encounter, refused to comply with Deputy Switzer's commands, leading to a physical confrontation that was partially captured on dash camera video. The altercation escalated, resulting in the Defendant being charged with battery upon a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (paras 2-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his request for a self-defense jury instruction, contending that Deputy Switzer initiated the altercation and used excessive force, thereby entitling the Defendant to defend himself (para 10).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the force used by Deputy Switzer was necessary and not excessive, supporting the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's request for a self-defense jury instruction (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to instruct the jury on self-defense, given the circumstances of the altercation between the Defendant and Deputy Switzer (para 10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, denying the Defendant's request for a self-defense jury instruction and upholding the convictions for battery upon a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (para 19).

Reasons

• Per B. Zamora, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, J., and Jennifer L. Attrep, J., concurring): The Court held that the Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction as a matter of law, based on the evidence presented at trial. The Court reasoned that for a self-defense instruction to be warranted, there must be evidence of the officer using greater force than necessary, among other criteria. The Court found that Deputy Switzer's actions, including the use of force prior to the Defendant striking him, were incremental and in proportion to the Defendant's non-compliance and aggression, similar to the situation in State v. Ellis. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the requested instruction, the Court concluded that reasonable minds could not differ with respect to whether Deputy Switzer used excessive force. Therefore, the Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction, and the convictions were affirmed (paras 11-18).