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 against a household member. The incident involved the Defendant striking Mendoza. The Defendant claimed she acted in self-defense.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Reed S. Sheppard, District Judge: The Defendant was convicted for battery against a household member.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self-defense when she struck Mendoza.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not act in self-defense when she struck Mendoza.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for battery against a household member.

Reasons

• CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The Court considered the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence to prove she did not act in self-defense. The Court referenced conflicting testimonies between the Defendant and Mendoza, noting the jury's role in resolving such conflicts and determining credibility. The Court highlighted the jury's decision to reject the Defendant's claim of self-defense, emphasizing the jury's discretion in evaluating evidence and inferences therefrom. The Court deferred to the jury's evaluation of the evidence, including Mendoza's testimony and other evidence presented, ultimately holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove the Defendant was not acting in self-defense when she committed the act of battery.