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 of harassment after a jury trial in metropolitan court. The harassment involved following a person around a grocery store while saying degrading things, preventing the person from getting into their car, damaging the vehicle, obstructing the vehicle's path as the person tried to leave, and showing up at the person's home to hit and kick doors and windows when the person refused to speak to the Defendant. This conduct occurred regularly, leading to multiple police reports (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alisa Hart, District Judge: Affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for harassment after a jury trial in metropolitan court.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the statute under which she was convicted is unconstitutionally vague and that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction, specifically contesting the evidence of her intent to annoy or harass and the creation of substantial emotional distress (para 2).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the language of NMSA 1978, Section 30-3A-2 (1997) is unconstitutionally vague.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for harassment, specifically regarding the intent to annoy or harass and the creation of substantial emotional distress (para 1-2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s affirmance of the Defendant's conviction for harassment (para 3).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague or that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. The Court relied on the reasoning found in the district court’s memorandum opinion and its own second notice of proposed disposition regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. It addressed the Defendant's void-for-vagueness argument by referencing a previous case to illustrate that the general public would understand that the Defendant's conduct was unlawful and not protected as a reasonable manner of communication. The Court concluded that the statute's language was sufficient to warn the Defendant that her actions were unlawful (para 2).