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, Stacy Harper, was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the Defendant allegedly waved a firearm in response to a car, described as a red Jeep, swerving towards her. The Defendant asserted that her actions were in self-defense.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Stan Whitaker, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by refusing to give the self-defense instruction she requested, asserting that her actions were in response to an immediate threat posed by the victim's aggressive driving.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's response was disproportionate to the victim's actions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support a self-defense instruction because the victim's vehicle did not swerve out of its lane or make contact with the Defendant's vehicle, thus not constituting a use of deadly force.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to give the self-defense instruction requested by the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with M. MONICA ZAMORA and HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judges, concurring:
  The Court issued a calendar notice proposing to reverse the Defendant’s conviction, which was met with opposition from the State. However, the Court found the State's arguments unconvincing. It was highlighted that a defendant is entitled to jury instructions on their theory of the case if there is evidence to support such instruction. The Court noted that the Defendant provided evidence suggesting the alleged victim responded with force that could create a substantial risk of death or great bodily harm, warranting a self-defense instruction. The State's reliance on cases where defendants' responses were clearly disproportionate was found inapplicable to the Defendant's situation. The Court recognized that a vehicle could be considered a deadly weapon if used in a manner that could inflict death or great bodily harm, making the reasonableness of the Defendant's response a question for the jury. The Court concluded that questioning the reasonableness of the Defendant's conduct is different from concluding that no reasonable jury could find the Defendant's conduct reasonable under the circumstances, leading to the reversal of the conviction (paras 1-6).