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 of aggravated battery without great bodily harm after an incident where she became enraged, pushed the victim to the ground, armed herself with a pool stick, broke it in half, and hit the victim over the face and head "out of panic." The Defendant argued that her actions were a result of a panic attack, suggesting a lack of intent to injure the victim (paras 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Miguel County, Gerald E. Baca, District Judge: Conviction of aggravated battery without great bodily harm.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that her testimony, which claimed she acted "out of panic" during a panic attack, was sufficient to warrant an instruction on simple battery as a lesser included offense. She believed this supported her theory that she acted without any intent to injure the victim (para 2).
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's testimony that she hit the victim "out of panic" was sufficient to warrant an instruction on simple battery as a lesser included offense, indicating a lack of intent to injure the victim (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of aggravated battery without great bodily harm (para 6).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Michael E. Vigil and Timothy L. Garcia, Judges, concurring: The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument that her testimony of acting "out of panic" warranted an instruction on simple battery as a lesser included offense. The Court distinguished the present case from cited precedents, noting that the Defendant's actions, including arming herself with a pool stick and warning the victim, were inconsistent with a lack of intent to injure. The Court also found the Defendant's reliance on out-of-state authority and the jury's questions insufficient to establish that simple battery was the highest degree of crime committed. The Court concluded that the evidence, coupled with the Defendant's testimony, did not support a simple battery instruction and affirmed the conviction (paras 2-5).