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, Christopher Baxendale, and Christina Lee, who had been in a relationship and had four children together, were living in a home owned by the Defendant after their breakup to accommodate Christina's schooling and living situation. On New Year's Eve, after Christina and the children went to celebrate at her grandmother's house, the Defendant, who was at work, exchanged text messages with Christina, indicating he did not want her to return home. Upon their attempt to return, Christina found padlocks, added by the Defendant, on the security doors, preventing entry. With the help of a neighbor, they broke the padlock, and as Christina attempted to enter, she heard what she initially thought were firecrackers but were actually gunshots fired by the Defendant from inside the house. The Defendant did not testify, but his statement to the police indicated he believed an intrusion was happening and fired the shots in defense (paras 2-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on self-defense and defense of property. Contended that his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant was not entitled to the jury instructions he requested because he used deadly force when he shot firearms at his back door. The State maintained that the facts did not support the Defendant's requests for instructions on self-defense and defense of property (paras 9, 12-13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to give the Defendant's requested jury instructions on self-defense and defense of property.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court committed reversible error by not instructing the jury on defense of habitation and reversed and remanded for a new trial. Consequently, the Court did not reach the Defendant’s double jeopardy claim (para 28).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Linda M. Vanzi, found that the Defendant was entitled to an instruction on defense of habitation based on his theory of the case, which was supported by evidence presented at trial. The Court determined that the Defendant's actions, firing two firearms at the back door, constituted the use of deadly force. However, the Court noted that the Defendant's request for jury instructions on self-defense and defense of property was preserved for review because the district court was sufficiently on notice that the Defendant was requesting an instruction on self-defense and defense of his habitation. The Court concluded that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Defendant, there was sufficient evidence that he believed an intrusion was occurring and that he fired shots to prevent entry into his home, thus justifying an instruction on defense of habitation. The Court did not address the entitlement to a self-defense instruction or the double jeopardy claim due to its conclusion on the defense of habitation instruction (paras 10-27).