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 of two counts of battery upon a peace officer and one count of breaking and entering. The incidents leading to these charges involved the Defendant inadvertently creating a hole in his neighbor's apartment wall, claiming he was trying to save the ladies next door and later resisting arrest by the police, during which he grabbed and squeezed the officers. The Defendant argued that his actions were involuntary, stemming from balance issues due to having one leg amputated (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that all conduct underlying the criminal charges was inadvertent, resulting from balance issues due to his amputation. He maintained that he lacked the required intent for the battery charges and did not enter the neighbor's apartment for the breaking and entering charge (paras 2, 7, 14).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Presented evidence including testimony and body camera recordings to show that the Defendant's actions during the arrest were intentional and not a result of losing balance. For the breaking and entering charge, the State argued that the Defendant made an intrusion into the neighbor's apartment, which constitutes entry (paras 8-16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for battery upon a peace officer, given his claim of involuntary action due to balance issues (para 7).
• Whether the Defendant's action of creating a hole in the wall constitutes entry for the breaking and entering charge (para 14).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions for two counts of battery upon a peace officer and one count of breaking and entering (para 18).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges MEGAN P. DUFFY, J. MILES HANISEE, and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, found that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. For the battery charges, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not need to intend harm but only to perform the actions of grabbing, pinching, and squeezing the officers. The jury's observation of the Defendant's actions through body camera footage and officer testimony supported the conclusion that these actions were intentional. For the breaking and entering charge, the Court determined that the Defendant's use of a hammer to create a hole in the wall constituted an entry, as even the slightest intrusion into a dwelling without permission meets the legal definition of entry. The presence of a hammer near the hole and the Defendant's statements provided sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent (paras 8-17).