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 aggravated battery (great bodily harm), robbery, and harassment after a jury trial. The appeal focuses solely on challenging the "great bodily harm" aspect of the aggravated battery conviction. The case involves the Victim being airlifted to another hospital and spending a week in the intensive care unit, which the Defendant argues does not necessarily indicate a high probability of death or permanent or prolonged impairment (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Douglas R. Driggers, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court should have dismissed the aggravated battery conviction due to insufficient evidence of great bodily harm. The Defendant contended that the Victim's injuries, requiring airlift and intensive care, did not necessarily mean there was a high probability of death or that there was permanent or prolonged impairment of any member or organ of the body. The Defendant suggested that the jury could have found the injury to be a painful, temporary disfigurement instead (para 2).
• Appellee: The State argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated battery with great bodily harm. This is inferred from the court's decision and the lack of detailed counterarguments from the Appellee in the provided text (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not dismissing the aggravated battery conviction due to alleged insufficient evidence of great bodily harm.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) (para 4).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, and DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge, concurring): The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded that the initial notice of proposed disposition was incorrect. The Court reiterated that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's findings and verdict regarding the great bodily harm aspect of the aggravated battery conviction. It emphasized that the jury was free to reject the Defendant's version of the facts and that it is the jury's role to resolve conflicts and determine the weight and credibility of the testimony. The Court stated it does not re-weigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury, as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict (paras 2-3).