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

• During a late-night patrol, Deputy Amber Salter of the Eddy County Sheriff’s Department encountered Defendant Fabian Fierro, who backed out of a driveway without headlights and engaged in a series of dangerous driving behaviors including speeding and running stop signs. When Deputy Salter attempted to stop Fierro, he fired shots from his vehicle in her direction on two separate occasions before fleeing. Fierro and a passenger were later apprehended hiding in an apartment complex attic (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the convictions for aggravated assault upon a peace officer and shooting at or from a motor vehicle violated the constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy, claimed insufficient evidence for the conviction of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, and contended that the prosecutor's statements about "lying in wait" constituted misconduct (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's conduct was not unitary, thus not violating double jeopardy principles, and maintained that sufficient evidence supported all convictions, including the aggravated fleeing charge. The State also defended the prosecutor's comments as not constituting misconduct (paras 7, 13, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the convictions for aggravated assault upon a peace officer and shooting at or from a motor vehicle violated the Defendant's constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer.
• Whether the prosecutor's comments about the Defendant "lying in wait" constituted misconduct.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and rejected all of the Defendant's arguments.

Reasons

• Per Stephen G. French, J. (M. Monica Zamora, J., Emil J. Kiehne, J., concurring):
  Double Jeopardy: The court applied the two-part test from Swafford v. State to determine that the Defendant's conduct was not unitary because the acts of shooting at or from a motor vehicle and aggravated assault upon a peace officer were separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness, including time, the nature of the acts, and the objectives of the acts (paras 6-11).
  Sufficient Evidence for Aggravated Fleeing: The court found substantial evidence that the Defendant's driving endangered the life of another person, specifically noting that having a passenger in the vehicle during the dangerous driving and fleeing satisfied the endangerment criterion (para 14).
  Prosecutor’s Comments: The court determined that the prosecutor's comments did not constitute misconduct or result in fundamental error. The comments were related to the evidence presented at trial and did not significantly affect the jury's deliberations (para 15).