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

• On May 25, 2009, two officers were dispatched to a Santa Fe apartment complex to investigate a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, one officer observed the Defendant running from the scene and gave chase. The Defendant, after being pursued, stopped and faced the officer, pulling out a metallic object which turned out to be a beer can. Despite the officer's commands, the Defendant refused to get on the ground, leading to a physical altercation. The Defendant resisted arrest, assaulted the officers, and attempted to disarm one of them. He was subsequently charged with disarming a peace officer, battery upon a peace officer, and assault upon a peace officer, but was convicted only on the latter two charges.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the Defendant's theory of self-defense, particularly focusing on the amount of force employed by the officer during the arrest.
• Appellee: Contended that the Defendant did not present sufficient evidence to justify a self-defense instruction, emphasizing that the force used by the officer was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the Defendant's theory of self-defense.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for battery and assault on a peace officer.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, concurring):
  The court found that under New Mexico law, a self-defense instruction against a peace officer is justified only if the officer used excessive force. The Defendant's argument centered on the claim that the officer's failure to inform him he was not under arrest violated police policy and contributed to his fear and subsequent resistance. However, the court ruled this oversight did not factor into the self-defense argument, noting that the Defendant failed to demonstrate how this policy violation induced fear or justified his resistance. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the Defendant did not provide evidence that his resistance was motivated by fear of bodily injury, a necessary element for a self-defense claim. The court concluded that the officer's actions were reasonable and necessary, incrementally escalating in response to the Defendant's actions, and thus, no excessive force was employed. Consequently, the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense was deemed proper.