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, while working security at a nightclub, engaged in an argument with his girlfriend and subsequently stabbed her nineteen times. During this altercation, the girlfriend's niece attempted to intervene and was also stabbed by the Defendant (para 2).

Procedural History

• Grand Jury, May 14, 2012: Indicted Defendant for kidnapping, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of tampering with evidence (para 3).
• District Court of Bernalillo County, April 13, 2015: Following a five-day jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple alternatives to each count for attempted first-degree murder. The court vacated all of Defendant’s convictions except for aggravated battery against a household member resulting in great bodily harm, and aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm, citing double jeopardy concerns (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm; (3) the district court abused its discretion by not excusing a seated juror for cause; (4) the district court erred by refusing his requested jury instruction; and (5) the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by not excusing a seated juror for cause.
• Whether the district court erred by refusing the Defendant's requested jury instruction.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision on all counts (para 38).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that:
  The delay in the trial was not a violation of the Defendant's right to a speedy trial, considering the complexity of the case and the reasons for delay, including Defendant's own actions contributing to the delay (paras 5-27).
  The sufficiency of evidence argument was moot because the convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon were vacated on double jeopardy grounds (para 29).
  There was no abuse of discretion in not excusing the juror as there was no evidence suggesting that the brief interaction between the juror and the prosecutor affected the jury’s deliberations or rendered the trial unfair (paras 30-33).
  The Defendant's argument regarding the jury instruction was not addressed due to lack of preservation for appeal and mootness, as his remaining convictions did not require proof that a deadly weapon was used (para 34).
  The sentencing by the district court was within the statutory range, and the court did not abuse its discretion despite the Defendant's argument against the diagnostic evaluation recommending probation (paras 35-37).