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 two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after an incident involving two city workers. The workers were boarding up the Defendant's house, which had been declared sub-standard, using plywood. The Defendant, inside the house, attempted to stop them by kicking the door and using a samurai sword to remove the plywood but was unsuccessful. He then squeezed out from under the garage door, still holding the sword, and confronted the workers in front of the house. The workers testified they feared for their lives during the confrontation (para 6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court improperly denied the Defendant’s proposed defense of property jury instruction. Additionally, sought to amend the docketing statement to add three new issues: challenging the case law on specific intent for aggravated assault, arguing the evidence was insufficient to show he acted in a way that could have caused reasonable fear of immediate battery, and claiming entitlement to a necessity defense (paras 1-2, 8).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly denied the Defendant’s proposed defense of property jury instruction.
• Whether specific intent is a necessary element for a conviction of aggravated assault.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to show the Defendant acted in a way that could have caused a bystander to reasonably fear an immediate battery.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to a necessity defense jury instruction (paras 1-2, 8).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied, and the Defendant's convictions were affirmed (para 10).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Timothy L. Garcia, Jonathan B. Sutin, and Julie J. Vargas, found that the Defendant abandoned the issue regarding the defense of property jury instruction by not responding to the Court's notice. The Court also denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add new issues because they were not preserved at trial and were not considered viable for appeal. Specifically, the Court held that New Mexico law does not require proof of specific intent for aggravated assault convictions, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable person to fear immediate battery, and the Defendant did not demonstrate facts supporting a duress instruction. The Court concluded that the lack of a duress instruction did not amount to fundamental error (paras 1-9).