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 convicted for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The incident involved the Defendant walking toward and between officers, which was interpreted as an attempt to enter a house, and subsequently pulling away from the officers when they grabbed his arms, leading to a physical struggle.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant's actions of walking or pushing past officers and pulling away during apprehension constituted flight or attempted evasion, justifying the conviction under NMSA 1978, § 30-22-1(B) (1981).
• Appellant (Defendant-Thomas Edge): The specific arguments made by the Defendant are not detailed in the provided text, but it is implied that the Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's actions constituted flight or evasion within the meaning of NMSA 1978, § 30-22-1(B) (1981).
• Whether there was a problematic discrepancy between the offense charged and the version upon which the jury returned a guilty verdict, and if this discrepancy constituted fundamental error.

Disposition

• The conviction of the Defendant for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer was reversed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Henderson, Hanisee, and Bogardus, unanimously found that the Defendant's actions did not constitute flight or evasion as defined under the relevant statute. The Court referenced State v. Jimenez to support its conclusion that the Defendant's conduct, while possibly supporting a conviction under a different subsection, did not meet the criteria for conviction under Subsection (B) for flight or evasion (para 3). The Court also addressed the State's arguments regarding the discrepancy between the offense charged and the jury's verdict, citing State v. Ocon to highlight that such discrepancies can rise to the level of fundamental error. The Court rejected the State's contention that the discrepancy was immaterial, emphasizing the importance of accurate charging documents and jury instructions and the constitutional right of defendants to have a jury decide on guilt based on properly instructed elements (paras 4-6).