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 for aggravated battery against a household member. The case involved an incident where the Defendant allegedly attacked the Victim by striking her with a bottle, causing bleeding, and further assaulting her by hitting, kicking, and banging her head into a wall.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not striking a prospective juror for cause, which forced the Defendant to use a peremptory challenge. Additionally, contended that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated battery against a household member, particularly regarding the severity of harm inflicted or could have been inflicted on the Victim.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Maintained that the juror in question could remain impartial despite knowing the Victim's father, the prosecuting attorney, and one of the testifying police officers. Also argued that the Victim's testimony about the nature of the attack was sufficient to support the conviction, as it demonstrated the battery occurred in a manner likely to result in great bodily harm.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to strike a prospective juror for cause.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery against a household member.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery against a household member.

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge (with MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  Juror Bias: The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the juror for cause. Despite the Defendant's concerns about the juror's impartiality due to her acquaintances and emotional reaction to the case's domestic violence nature, the juror affirmed she could remain fair and impartial. The Court referenced State v. Hernandez and State v. Dobbs to support its decision, noting that a juror's assurance of impartiality and the trial judge's credibility assessment are critical factors (paras 2-3).
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction, emphasizing that the statute requires only that great bodily harm could result from the Defendant's actions, not that it must. The Court relied on the Victim's testimony about the attack's nature and referenced State v. Pettigrew and State v. Dominguez to affirm that the manner of the battery—using a bottle to strike the Victim and further assaulting her—was likely to result in great bodily harm. The Court dismissed the Defendant's argument for requiring testimony on the probability of death or serious injury, underscoring that the attack's nature itself was sufficient to support the conviction (paras 4-6).