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 and the Victim were in a relationship for several years before breaking up. Despite the breakup, they continued to have a sexual relationship. On the night of the Victim's birthday, after excessive drinking, they returned to the Defendant's home where an argument ensued, leading to the Defendant stabbing the Victim five times in his head and back. The Defendant was subsequently convicted for aggravated battery on a household member (great bodily harm).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not providing her requested jury instructions for self-defense and great bodily harm, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and contended that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the jury instructions were proper, the defense counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance, and the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not providing the Defendant's requested jury instructions for self-defense and great bodily harm.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• BOGARDUS, Judge; YOHALEM, Judge; BACA, Judge (concurring): The court found that the Defendant was not entitled to her requested jury instructions regarding great bodily harm and self-defense as they were not supported by evidence presented at trial (paras 4-7). The court also determined that the Defendant waived her right to object to the self-defense instruction by inviting the decision from the district court (para 8). Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court concluded that the decision not to rely on certain messages as evidence was a rational trial strategy, thus not constituting ineffective assistance (paras 9-13). Lastly, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction, as the evidence presented met the requirements for proving aggravated battery on a household member (great bodily harm) and established that the Victim was a household member under the law (paras 14-19).