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 violating an order of protection. The case involved the Defendant's contact with the victim, which was contrary to a validly served order of protection forbidding such contact.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Brett Loveless, District Judge: Conviction for violating an order of protection.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the trial judge's questioning was improper and displayed bias, contending it unfairly assisted the prosecution and compelled the Defendant to face undue scrutiny. The Defendant also challenged the jury instruction on the essential elements of the offense and contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, asserting a defense of duress.
• Appellee (State): Presented evidence that the Defendant contacted the victim in violation of a properly served order of protection, which explicitly forbade such contact.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial judge's questioning of witnesses was improper and displayed bias.
• Whether the jury instruction on the essential elements of the offense was fundamentally flawed.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Disposition

• The conviction for violating an order of protection was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the trial judge's questioning of witnesses aimed to clarify the timeline of events and the whereabouts of the Defendant's medications and medical equipment, which was within the judge's discretion to ensure a fair trial. The differential treatment in questioning was attributed to the Defendant's unresponsiveness rather than bias (paras 3-4). Regarding the jury instruction, the Court held that the instruction given communicated the essential elements of the offense, and the Defendant's proposed supplemental language concerning duress was unnecessary as this defense was already conveyed to the jury through another instruction (para 5). On the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court noted the State's evidence that the Defendant contacted the victim in violation of the order of protection and stated that the jury was free to reject the Defendant's testimony and version of the facts, including his claim of duress (para 6).