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 resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and was sentenced to probation following a jury trial. The conviction was based on evidence of the Defendant's belligerent and menacing behavior towards officers and his physical resistance, including actions that forced officers to carry him to the patrol car.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Dona Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge, February 14, 2017.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically contending that there was no evidence he was "intentionally fleeing, attempting to evade or evading an officer" as required by the statute.
• Appellee: The State, through its representation, supported the conviction, arguing that the Defendant's actions constituted sufficient evidence of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer under the relevant statute.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer under NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1(B) (1981).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence convicting the Defendant of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J., with James J. Wechsler, J., and Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring: The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. The Court referenced the combined evidence of the Defendant's behavior and physical resistance, which aligned with the statutory requirements for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The Court also noted that the Defendant's reliance on dictionary definitions of "flee" and "evade" did not sufficiently counter the broad interpretation of the statute, which encompasses a range of obstructive behaviors beyond merely fleeing or slipping away. The Court found the Defendant's actions, specifically planting his feet on the ground and dropping his weight to prevent officers from walking him to the patrol car, akin to the actions in a precedent case (State v. Wilson, 2007-NMCA-111), supporting a similar finding of attempting to evade. The Court affirmed the conviction based on these reasons (paras 1-5).