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 September 12, 2015, the Defendant and his girlfriend were involved in an incident where, during an argument while driving, the girlfriend jumped out of the moving vehicle, resulting in her death from the vehicle running over her. The Defendant did not stop at the scene to investigate or provide assistance but later informed a friend to pick her up, claiming she was sitting up on the curb. The incident led to the Defendant being charged with leaving the scene of an accident resulting in great bodily harm or death (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the district court erred in not properly instructing the jury on the definition of "accident" and contended that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically that there was no evidence he knew his vehicle was involved in a collision with the victim (paras 1, 7, 19).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the term "accident" should be construed broadly and that the given jury instruction was adequate. Also argued that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction (paras 13, 19).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its instruction regarding leaving the scene of an accident by failing to define what constitutes an "accident."
• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for leaving the scene of an accident (paras 1, 19).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in great bodily harm or death (para 23).

Reasons

• Per HANISEE, Chief Judge (DUFFY, Judge and IVES, Judge concurring):
  The term "accident" encompasses circumstances where a passenger jumps from a moving vehicle, and the district court's jury instruction was proper. The Legislature's use of the term "accident" rather than specifying a motor vehicle accident indicates an intent to cover more than vehicle collisions. The court concluded that the plain meaning of the language within the context of the statute as a whole applies to more than collisions (paras 7, 14, 18).
  Sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction. The Defendant admitted awareness that the victim jumped from his vehicle while it was moving, an event qualifying as an accident under New Mexico’s hit-and-run statute. The jury found that the Defendant knew he was involved in an accident and knowingly failed to stop, satisfying the elements required for conviction (paras 19-22).