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 case involves the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault on a peace officer. The incident occurred when two police officers responded to a disturbance call. Upon arrival, one officer encountered the Defendant in a driveway, holding one or more knives and advancing in a threatening manner, which prevented the officer from exiting the patrol vehicle and instilled fear of imminent attack. The Defendant was heard screaming "Kill me! Kill me!" and eventually threw the knife or knives onto the roof before being detained (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chavez County, Kea W. Riggs, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, specifically questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to establish criminal intent and later shifting focus to the reasonableness of the officer’s fear of imminent battery (paras 2, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the evidence, including the Defendant's threatening advance with one or more knives and the officer's subjective perception of a threat, was sufficient to support the conviction (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault on a peace officer, particularly regarding the establishment of criminal intent and the reasonableness of the officer's fear of imminent battery.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for aggravated assault on a peace officer (para 6).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge, and JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, concurring): The Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's assertion of error regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. It focused on the Defendant's threatening behavior with knives and the officer's fear of imminent attack as sufficient grounds for the conviction. The Court noted that the jury is the proper judge of witness credibility and the weight of evidence, including the reasonableness of the officer's fear. The Defendant's additional evidence and arguments regarding the officer's credibility and the genuine threat posed were not sufficient to overturn the jury's findings. The appellate court, therefore, rejected the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and affirmed the conviction based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition and the memorandum opinion (paras 1-6).