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 case involves the Defendant, Sergio Chavez-Aguirre, who was convicted of multiple charges stemming from a series of violent acts against the Victim, a household member, and their children. The events unfolded over December 7 and 8, 2014, beginning with the Defendant assaulting the Victim after accusing her of infidelity. The assault escalated to include physical violence with various objects, sexual assault, and threats of murder in the presence of their children. The Defendant's actions culminated in the Victim suffering a broken jaw among other injuries. The police were eventually called to the scene by one of the children (paras 4-17).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) his conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) violated double jeopardy principles because the Victim’s broken jaw could have been caused by any of the weapons used in his other convictions for aggravated battery or by his fists, and (2) the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the definition of personal injury relevant to his conviction for criminal sexual penetration (CSP), resulting in fundamental error (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the case should be analyzed as a "double-description" case rather than a "unit of prosecution" case for the double jeopardy argument. Additionally, argued that it was most likely the speaker, not listed in the other aggravated battery charges, that caused the Victim’s broken jaw, attempting to rebut the Defendant's double jeopardy claim (paras 19-29).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) violated double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the failure to instruct the jury on the definition of personal injury relevant to the CSP conviction resulted in fundamental error.

Disposition

• The conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) was reversed due to principles of double jeopardy. The court otherwise affirmed the Defendant's convictions (para 37).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Kristina Bogardus, Julie J. Vargas, and Shammara H. Henderson, found that the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) violated double jeopardy principles because the jury could have based their decision on conduct that was also the basis for other convictions, without clear evidence of when or how the Victim’s jaw was broken. The Court applied a "unit of prosecution" analysis, determining that the Legislature intended punishment for each discrete act rather than the entire course of conduct. Since the jury instructions allowed for multiple theories supporting the conviction, some of which would violate double jeopardy principles, and the record did not clarify which act caused the Victim’s broken jaw, the conviction was reversed (paras 18-30).
  Regarding the failure to instruct the jury on the definition of personal injury for the CSP conviction, the Court found no fundamental error. The Court reasoned that the definition of "personal injury" is a question of law, not for the jury, and even if it were for the jury, the omission of a definitional instruction did not result in fundamental unfairness. The instructions given were consistent with the New Mexico Uniform Jury Instructions, and the Court concluded that the jury would not have been confused or misdirected by the omission (paras 31-36).