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 for aggravated battery on a household member causing great bodily harm and violating a restraining order. The case involved the Defendant hitting the Victim in the face and choking her until she lost consciousness. Additionally, there was evidence of a valid order of protection filed against the Defendant at the time of the incident.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by (1) handling the excusal of a juror who realized she knew the Victim, potentially tainting the jury panel, (2) excluding a prospective juror for cause based on expressed bias, (3) allowing an officer to remain at counsel table throughout the trial, (4) permitting testimony about the Victim's anxiety and mental anguish, and (5) contending the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Defended the trial court's decisions on juror excusal and inclusion, the presence of an officer at counsel table, the relevance of testimony regarding the Victim's psychological impact, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its handling of the excusal of a juror who realized she knew the Victim.
• Whether the district court erred in excluding a prospective juror for cause based on expressed bias.
• Whether it was proper for an officer to remain at counsel table throughout the trial.
• Whether testimony about the Victim's anxiety and mental anguish was relevant and permissible.
• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The convictions for aggravated battery on a household member (great bodily harm) and violating a restraining order were affirmed.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Megan P. Duffy and Zachary A. Ives concurring:
  The court found the issue regarding the juror who knew the Victim not viable for appeal due to lack of preservation and absence of action by trial counsel (para 2).
  The decision to exclude a prospective juror for cause was within the district court's discretion, given the juror's expressed bias against the prosecution and/or law enforcement (para 4).
  Allowing an officer to remain at counsel table was permissible as the officer was an investigative agent, and the court's approach was within its discretion (para 5).
  Testimony regarding the Victim's anxiety and mental anguish was deemed relevant to establish the serious nature of the harm and the extent of danger posed by the Defendant's conduct (para 6).
  The evidence was considered sufficient to support the convictions, with the court refusing to re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence, respecting the jury's role as fact-finder (para 7).