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 battery upon a peace officer and resisting arrest. The incident involved the Defendant allegedly hitting Officer Corvinus in the head during an attempt to execute an arrest warrant on the Defendant. Officer Corvinus' statements regarding the incident were captured on his lapel video and were admitted at trial, despite the officer being deceased. The Defendant's actions were challenged in court, particularly focusing on the admissibility of the evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that a confrontation issue exists regarding the admissibility of a deceased officer's statement made at the scene, captured on lapel video. Contended that the statement was testimonial and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the battery conviction.
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Defended the trial court's decision, arguing that the deceased officer's statements were non-testimonial and made under the stress of the moment, fitting the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. Asserted that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in admitting the deceased officer's statements under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for battery upon a peace officer.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The convictions for battery upon a peace officer and resisting arrest were affirmed.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, with JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, and JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge, concurring:
  The court found the issue raised by the Defendant regarding the confrontation over the deceased officer's statement to be non-viable, as the statement was deemed non-testimonial. The statement was made shortly after the incident, aiming to explain the events at the scene rather than to create evidence (paras 2-3).
  The court upheld the sufficiency of the evidence for the battery conviction, noting that the State presented evidence of the Defendant's actions through the deceased officer's lapel video and testimony from another officer at the scene. This evidence was deemed sufficient for a rational trier of fact to establish the crime's elements beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 4-6).
  The court supported the district court's ruling that the deceased officer's statements on the video were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. It was concluded that the statements were made spontaneously under stressful conditions, reducing the likelihood of fabrication (paras 7-8).