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, Robert Apodaca, who was convicted for evading an officer after an argument with his then-girlfriend, Valerie Huizar. Following a 911 call by Huizar, Officer Michelle Ortega was dispatched to apprehend the Defendant. Despite Ortega's commands to stop and keep his hands visible, the Defendant continued walking away, leading to a confrontation where Ortega shot him in the leg after he "flung" something towards her. The Defendant argued he was trying to avoid arrest due to fear of being jailed on an outstanding warrant (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury that evading arrest requires more than "mere forestallment" and contended that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence (para 1).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the jury received the correct uniform jury instruction, which accurately reflected the relevant law, and argued that the Defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence (paras 7, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that evading arrest requires more than "mere forestallment."
• Whether the Defendant's conviction for evading an officer is supported by sufficient evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for evading an officer (para 21).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge, VARGAS, Judge, and IVES, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found that the district court did not err in giving the uniform jury instruction without modification, as it accurately reflected the law. The Defendant's request for a modified instruction was not preserved at trial, and the Court reviewed for fundamental error but found none (paras 7-14).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Defendant's conviction. The evidence showed that the Defendant walked away from Officer Ortega despite her commands to stop, which constituted evading arrest under the law. The Court concluded that the Defendant's actions met the legal definition of evading an officer (paras 15-20).