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

• In October 2018, John Radosevich requested to move in with Derek Overman in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After his request was denied due to Overman already having a roommate, Radosevich engaged in a physical altercation with the roommate, left, and later returned, driving a vehicle towards Overman, which resulted in Overman being hit near his left shoulder by the vehicle's mirror (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction for the lesser offense of aggravated assault (deadly weapon) and maintained that aggravated assault (deadly weapon) is not a lesser included offense of aggravated battery (deadly weapon) (para 4).
• Appellee: Contended that the district court properly instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of aggravated assault (deadly weapon) (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in instructing the jury on aggravated assault (deadly weapon) as a lesser included offense of aggravated battery (deadly weapon) (para 1).

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the district court's decision to instruct the jury on aggravated assault (deadly weapon) as a lesser included offense of aggravated battery (deadly weapon) was affirmed (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Hanisee with Judges Henderson and Baca concurring, held that the district court did not err in its decision. The Court applied the "cognate approach" from State v. Meadors, which requires that (1) the defendant could not have committed the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense, (2) the evidence at trial is sufficient to sustain a conviction on the lesser offense, and (3) the elements that distinguish the lesser and greater offenses are sufficiently in dispute. The Court found that all three prongs were satisfied: the act of driving a vehicle towards Overman inherently included the anticipation of force characteristic of assault; the evidence, including testimony from Overman and a neighbor, was sufficient to demonstrate Overman's belief of imminent harm and the defendant's intent to injure; and inconsistencies in testimony about the contact made by the vehicle indicated that the jury could rationally acquit on the charge of aggravated battery (deadly weapon) and convict on the lesser charge of aggravated assault (deadly weapon) (paras 5-12).