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 assault on a household member and criminal damage to property. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the Defendant allegedly banged on the victim's garage door and was seen leaving the scene. Additionally, the Defendant was accused of leaving a threatening voice message on the victim's cell phone, causing the victim to fear an imminent battery.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s judgment and sentence convicting the Defendant of assault on a household member and criminal damage to property.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that a juror, Ms. Paige Messec, should have been excused for potential jury misconduct due to her access to extraneous information about the Defendant's federal conviction. Contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for criminal damage to property and that the victim's testimony was not credible. Also argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove he was the person who left the threatening voice message and that the victim's fear of imminent battery was not credible.
• Appellee (State): Argued that there was no evidence of jury misconduct as there was no proof that extraneous information actually reached the jury. Maintained that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal damage to property based on the victim's testimony. Asserted that the jury was entitled to resolve conflicts in testimony and determine the credibility of witnesses.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in not excusing a juror for potential jury misconduct due to her access to extraneous information about the Defendant's federal conviction.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal damage to property.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the threatening voice message and the victim's fear of imminent battery.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence convicting the Defendant of assault on a household member and criminal damage to property.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Cynthia A. Fry and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, the court found:
  Regarding Jury Misconduct: The court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument regarding potential jury misconduct, as there was no evidence that extraneous information actually reached the jury or influenced their deliberations (paras 2).
  Sufficiency of Evidence for Criminal Damage to Property: The court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal damage to property, citing the victim's testimony that she saw the Defendant leaving the scene. The court emphasized that it does not weigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder (paras 3).
  Sufficiency of Evidence for Threatening Voice Message and Victim's Fear: The court determined there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the threatening voice message and the victim's fear of imminent battery. It highlighted that the jury was free to resolve conflicts in testimony and determine credibility, and that the standard of proof on appeal is beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 4-5).
  The court affirmed the Defendant's judgment and sentence based on the reasons stated above and in the calendar notice, deferring to the fact finder's role in weighing the credibility of the testimony and resolving any conflicts in evidence (para 6).