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 great bodily injury by vehicle while driving under the influence, reckless driving, and driving with a suspended or revoked license. These charges stemmed from an incident in a bar parking lot where the Defendant drove her car over a bouncer, causing him injuries that required two surgeries (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that her conviction for great bodily injury by vehicle should be reversed on grounds of denied due process, ineffective assistance of counsel, failure of the court to instruct the jury on certain defenses, violation of her right to be present during trial, and denial of her ability to present a defense by excluding a witness's testimony (para 4).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant's arguments did not warrant reversal of her convictions and maintained that the trial court's decisions and jury instructions were appropriate and lawful (paras 5-22).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was denied due process by the district court's prohibition of arguing lack of specific intent.
• Whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to request jury instructions on certain defenses.
• Whether the court's failure to instruct the jury on self-defense constituted fundamental error.
• Whether the Defendant's constitutional right to be present during trial was violated.
• Whether the district court denied the Defendant's ability to present a defense by excluding a witness's testimony (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions, finding no merit in the arguments for reversal (para 2).

Reasons

• SUTIN, Judge (with MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The court held that great bodily harm by vehicle is a general intent crime, and the Defendant was not entitled to argue lack of specific intent as a defense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the Defendant's closing argument on this basis (paras 5, 9-10).
  Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from her counsel's performance, thus not meeting the required standard for such a claim (para 12).
  The court determined that the district court was not obligated to instruct the jury on self-defense sua sponte, as self-defense was not an essential element of great bodily injury by vehicle (paras 13-16).
  The Defendant waived her right to be present during a nineteen-minute portion of the trial by her counsel's acknowledgment of her responsibility for being late. There was no demonstration of prejudice from her brief absence (para 17-18).
  The exclusion of a witness's testimony due to violation of Rule 11-615 NMRA was within the district court's discretion. The witness's presence during the trial could have allowed her to tailor her testimony, and the Defendant forfeited her right to present this witness by not ensuring the witness's absence during the trial (paras 19-22).