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 case involves the Defendant, who, after being punched and having his gun grabbed at by the victim, Aaron Chavez, fired at least six bullets, resulting in Chavez's death and endangering Michael Sedillo, who was in the vicinity but not in the van at the time of the shooting. The incident escalated quickly after the physical altercation between Chavez and the Defendant.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by not submitting his requested jury instructions for lesser included offenses of the attempted first degree murder charge, specifically attempted second degree murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter. Additionally, contended that his convictions for both second degree murder and shooting at or from a motor vehicle resulting in great bodily harm violate double jeopardy. Also, claimed the district court erred in refusing to allow character evidence of the victim and in handling hearsay statements and confrontation rights.
• Appellee (State): Maintained that the district court's decisions regarding jury instructions, double jeopardy, and evidentiary rulings were correct and that the Defendant's convictions should be upheld.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to submit the Defendant's requested jury instructions for lesser included offenses of attempted first degree murder.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for both second degree murder and shooting at or from a motor vehicle resulting in great bodily harm violate double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court erred in its evidentiary rulings regarding character evidence of the victim, hearsay statements, and confrontation rights.

Disposition

• The conviction for attempted first degree murder was reversed and remanded due to the district court's error in refusing to submit the Defendant's requested jury instruction for attempted second degree murder.
• The conviction for second degree shooting at or from a motor vehicle was vacated due to a violation of double jeopardy.
• The district court's decisions regarding the exclusion of character evidence of the victim, hearsay statements, and confrontation rights were affirmed.

Reasons

• Cynthia A. Fry, Judge (Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge, J. Miles Hanisee, Judge concurring): Found that the Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder (paras 5-9), leading to the reversal of the attempted first degree murder conviction. Agreed that the convictions for both second degree murder and shooting at or from a motor vehicle resulting in great bodily harm violated double jeopardy (paras 20-22), necessitating the vacating of one conviction. Upheld the district court's rulings on evidentiary issues, concluding that the exclusion of character evidence of the victim was not an abuse of discretion (paras 24-26), that the refusal to allow impeachment of hearsay statements was justified (paras 27-29), and that the admission of an out-of-court statement did not violate the Defendant's confrontation rights (paras 30-32). Dismissed the argument for a jury determination on amenability to treatment due to binding Supreme Court precedent (para 33).