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

• At approximately 1:20 a.m., police officers were dispatched to an apartment complex due to a disturbance report. Upon encountering the Defendant at the scene, officers testified that he appeared intoxicated, was non-compliant, verbally aggressive, spat on an officer, and kicked another officer during his arrest.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Thomas A. Rutledge, District Judge, January 24, 2013: Conviction of one count of battery on a peace officer, one count of resisting or evading an officer, and one count of disorderly conduct.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court erred by allowing testimony about his alleged gang association and statements to "put it on Sur," argued the denial of his motion for a new trial was an abuse of discretion, claimed trial counsel was ineffective, and asserted the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the evidence of the Defendant's gang association was probative of his intent to commit the charged crimes, contended that the Defendant did not preserve the issue of gang testimony for review, and maintained that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by permitting testimony about the Defendant's alleged gang association.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant's motion for a new trial.
• Whether the trial counsel was ineffective.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that:
  The issue of gang testimony was not preserved for appellate review as the Defendant failed to object to the testimony during the trial, thus waiving the issue (paras I, II).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial since the Defendant did not present evidence supporting the assertion that the recording might not have been made during the incident. The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was also dismissed due to the lack of evidence in the record to fully determine the claim (paras II, III).
  There was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, including the testimony regarding the Defendant's aggressive and non-compliant behavior during the arrest (paras II, III).