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

• A violent altercation occurred between the Defendant and the Victim, both of whom shared a rented residence and had a recently ended romantic relationship. The Defendant was under a "no contact order" concerning the Victim. On the night of the incident, the Victim found the Defendant in their home and called 911 to have him removed. A struggle ensued, during which the Victim was stabbed multiple times by the Defendant. The Defendant testified that he acted in self-defense after the Victim threatened him with a knife (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant was not entitled to a "stand your ground" instruction due to a no contact order, making his presence in the Victim's house unlawful. The State also contended that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (paras 8, 11, 13-14, 16-19).
• Defendant-Appellant: Requested a "stand your ground" instruction, arguing that he acted in self-defense. The Defendant also sought instructions for lesser included offenses and argued against the exclusion of evidence that could demonstrate the Victim as the first aggressor. Additionally, the Defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence for his conviction of resisting or evading an officer (paras 8, 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's request for a "stand your ground" jury instruction.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for resisting or evading an officer (paras 10-11, 17).

Disposition

• The court reversed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and remanded for a new trial on this charge.
• The court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (para 20).

Reasons

• The appellate court, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the opinion, found that the district court committed reversible error by denying the Defendant's request for a "stand your ground" instruction, as there was sufficient evidence to support the giving of this instruction based on the Defendant's testimony. The court held that the Defendant, despite the no contact order, could have been entitled to stand his ground if the jury found he acted in self-defense. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, as he hid in the attic when police announced their presence and did not come forward until discovered (paras 11-19).