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

• On May 30, 2007, the Defendant, after consuming a significant amount of alcohol, went to a party in a desert area outside Las Cruces, New Mexico, with three friends. At the party, a confrontation ensued, during which the Defendant was identified as having attacked other attendees, inflicted harm, damaged vehicles, and taken or orchestrated the taking of items including Red Bull, two cell phones, a car stereo faceplate, and compact discs. The Defendant was indicted for numerous crimes related to these events (paras 2, 4-5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Stephen Bridgforth, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, December 6, 2011, No. 33,295; and Certiorari Denied, December 7, 2011, No. 33,297.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in refusing to issue a requested instruction on the defense of intoxication, claimed a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for several convictions, claimed error in admitting photographic evidence due to lack of proper foundation, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at trial (paras 20, 31, 36, 44, 47).
• Appellee: Responded by asserting that there was insufficient evidence to justify the issuance of the intoxication instruction and that the Appellant was not precluded from asserting inconsistent defenses. Additionally, contended that the Appellant failed to preserve the confrontation claim for review and argued against the sufficiency of evidence and admission of photographic evidence claims (paras 21, 34).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to issue a requested instruction on the defense of intoxication.
• Whether the Appellant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support several of the Appellant's convictions.
• Whether the court erred in admitting photographic evidence.
• Whether the Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial (paras 20, 31, 36, 44, 47).

Disposition

• The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the specific intent crimes due to the district court's refusal to issue the intoxication instruction.
• The court affirmed the remaining convictions and rejected the Appellant's other arguments (para 49).

Reasons

• CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring): The court found that a criminal defendant has a right to an instruction on any recognized defense for which evidence has been presented, regardless of the defendant's theory of noninvolvement. The court held that the jury instruction on intoxication should have been given, thus reversing and remanding for a new trial on the specific intent crimes. The court affirmed on issues of confrontation clause violation, insufficient evidence, admission of evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel, either due to lack of preservation for review, sufficient evidence supporting the verdicts, or failure of the Appellant to adequately develop arguments (paras 21-30, 34-35, 37-43, 45-46, 48).