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, Aaron Ramos, was convicted for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The conviction stemmed from an incident where he refused to be photographed or fingerprinted at the police station, during which he threw himself onto the floor.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, specifically contending that there was insufficient evidence that he resisted or abused an officer. He acknowledged his refusal to be photographed or fingerprinted and his act of throwing himself on the floor but argued this did not constitute resistance or abuse (MIO 4).
• Appellee (State): The State's arguments are not directly detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the State argued the Defendant's actions constituted sufficient evidence of resisting an officer.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.
• Whether the district court committed fundamental error by failing to provide a substantive response to the jury’s question regarding the definition of abusing an officer.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that the Defendant's conduct of refusing to be photographed or fingerprinted and throwing himself on the floor was sufficient to constitute resistance. The Court deferred to the jury's verdict on matters of conflicting testimony, adhering to precedent that emphasizes deference to the fact-finder's credibility assessments and resolution of witness testimony conflicts. Regarding the jury's question about the definition of "abuse," the Court found no fundamental error in the district court's refusal to define the term, noting that the statutory definition of the offense and precedent recognize both physical acts of resistance and certain types of speech as constituting the offense. The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence of physical resistance by the Defendant, thus affirming the conviction without needing to address the definition of "abuse" further.