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, Jose Aguilar, was convicted of battery upon a police officer, aggravated battery upon a peace officer, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The case involved the Defendant's claim of self-defense, which was challenged by the State through rebuttal testimony by Officer Pool.

Procedural History

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

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the district court erred in allowing the State to recall Officer Pool for rebuttal testimony, claiming it was improper as it merely repeated his direct testimony and did not constitute genuine rebuttal evidence.
• State: Responded to the Defendant's arguments by stating it did not oppose the proposed summary reversal of the Defendant's conviction for battery upon a police officer.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing the State to recall Officer Pool to rebut the Defendant's claim of self-defense.
• Whether merging the Defendant's two battery convictions to remedy a double jeopardy violation was appropriate.

Disposition

• The conviction for battery upon a police officer was reversed and remanded for the limited purpose of vacating that conviction.
• The convictions for aggravated battery upon a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer were affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring):
  The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to allow the State to recall Officer Pool for rebuttal testimony against the Defendant's claim of self-defense. The Court referenced State v. Simonson to support the notion that genuine rebuttal evidence can sometimes overlap with evidence presented in the State's case-in-chief and that the admission of such rebuttal evidence is within the discretion of the trial court (paras 2-4). The Court also addressed the issue of double jeopardy concerning the Defendant's two battery convictions. It concluded that to remedy the double jeopardy violation, one of the convictions must be vacated rather than merely merged, as merging does not sufficiently address the violation. The Court decided to vacate the conviction for battery upon a peace officer, which carried the lesser sentence, in line with State v. Swick (para 5).