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

• Early one morning, a security guard at an Albuquerque Wal-Mart attempted to prevent the Defendant, who was dragging a large suitcase, from leaving the store without paying. The Defendant, when confronted, swung at the security guard, causing a shallow cut with a small, black folding knife. The Defendant then fled the scene with the suitcase, which contained various items including electronics and personal care products, totaling $730.78 in value. The police arrested the Defendant after he boarded a bus, finding a small pocketknife on him and the stolen merchandise in his possession (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the essential element of determining whether the knife was a deadly weapon for the aggravated battery charge and contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and felony shoplifting (para 7, 15).
• Appellee: Contended that the omission of a jury instruction on the deadly weapon element did not result in fundamental error because the element was established at trial. Also argued that the evidence was sufficient to support both convictions (paras 11, 20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's omission of a jury instruction on the deadly weapon element in the aggravated battery charge constituted fundamental error.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and felony shoplifting.

Disposition

• The conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon was reversed and remanded for a new trial due to fundamental error in jury instruction.
• The felony shoplifting conviction was affirmed (para 22).

Reasons

• MEDINA, Judge, ZAMORA, Judge, and VARGAS, Judge, concurring: The panel agreed that the omission of a jury instruction requiring the jury to find that the knife was a deadly weapon constituted fundamental error, reversing the conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The court found that a pocketknife is not a per se deadly weapon under the law, and the jury should have been tasked with determining its capability to cause death or great bodily harm. The court rejected the State's argument that the knife's appearance alone was sufficient to establish it as a deadly weapon, noting the security guard's description of the injury as shallow and not life-threatening, which did not support the notion of the knife being a deadly weapon as a matter of law. However, the court affirmed the felony shoplifting conviction, finding sufficient evidence that the Defendant had concealed merchandise with the intent to steal, as indicated by his actions and the items found in his possession (paras 7-21).