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 case involves the Defendant, Nora Huerta, who was charged with aggravated battery against a household member, aggravated assault against a household member, and criminal damage to property following an incident with her ex-boyfriend, Vidal Armenta. The confrontation occurred at a motel, leading to a physical altercation and the Defendant slashing Armenta's tire. The Defendant testified about past violence and her fear of Armenta, claiming self-defense and the need to prevent him from pursuing her (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the district court correctly denied the Defendant's request for a self-defense instruction regarding the criminal damage to property charge and that duress does not apply as a defense to the actions of the Defendant.
• Defendant-Appellant (Nora Huerta): Contended that the district court erred in denying a self-defense instruction for the criminal damage to property charge and argued that the court should have instructed the jury on duress as a defense to criminal damage to property (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's requested self-defense instruction as an affirmative defense to criminal damage to property.
• Whether the district court erred by not instructing the jury on duress as a defense to criminal damage to property (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, denying the Defendant's appeal on both issues raised (para 14).

Reasons

• GARCIA, Judge (with J. MILES HANISEE, Judge and STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that self-defense is not an available defense to criminal damage to property based on the lack of any cases providing for such a defense and the specific facts of this case. Even if self-defense were a valid defense to criminal damage to property, the evidence did not support giving the instruction in this instance (paras 5-10).
  Regarding the issue of duress, the Court concluded that the evidence did not support a duress instruction. The Defendant had the opportunity to leave the scene without committing criminal damage, and there was no imminent threat of great bodily harm that justified her actions under a duress defense (paras 11-13).
  The Court applied the "right-for-any-reason" doctrine, stating that the district court's decision could be upheld if it is correct for any reason, even if not the reason originally provided by the district court. This approach was deemed fair to the Defendant, who had the opportunity to present her case fully (para 15).