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 involved in an incident on the property of the Smiths, leading to charges of battery on a household member and criminal trespass. The incident involved an altercation where the Defendant and Ms. Mc Math were not invited onto the Smiths' property, and despite being asked to leave multiple times, the Defendant failed to do so promptly. Additionally, the Defendant was accused of committing battery on a household member during this incident.

Procedural History

• District Court of Roosevelt County, March 1, 2016: The district court jury returned guilty verdicts for battery on a household member and criminal trespass, and the case was remanded for sentencing by the magistrate court (paras 1, 3-4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for criminal trespass, claiming he had permission to enter the property and left as soon as he was asked. For the battery charge, the Defendant contended that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the act due to the positioning of the individuals involved and questioned the credibility of the victim's delayed report (paras 2, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for both criminal trespass and battery on a household member, highlighting witness testimonies and the Defendant's failure to leave the property promptly as well as the credibility of the victim's account (paras 2, 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal trespass.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for battery on a household member.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for both criminal trespass and battery on a household member (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, with Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring:
  The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for criminal trespass, citing witness testimonies that the Defendant and Ms. Mc Math were not invited onto the property and failed to leave promptly when asked multiple times. The Court also found sufficient evidence for the battery on a household member conviction, noting that the jury is tasked with resolving conflicts in testimony and determining the credibility of witnesses. The Defendant's arguments regarding the physical impossibility of the battery act and the credibility of the victim's delayed report were considered interpretations of facts that the jury was free to reject. The appellate court did not reweigh evidence or search for inferences supporting a contrary verdict, adhering to the principle that such analysis would substitute the appellate court’s judgment for that of the jury (paras 2-4).