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

• Defendant Ryan Stewart and his girlfriend were confronted by loss prevention employees at Sportsman’s Warehouse for shoplifting. During the ensuing scuffle, Stewart brandished a weapon before he and his girlfriend left the store. Stewart argued he acted in defense of his girlfriend, believing she was in imminent danger during the confrontation (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant Ryan Stewart): Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on defense of another, claiming he was entitled to this defense because he believed his girlfriend was in imminent danger (para 1).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the instruction on defense of another was not warranted by the evidence presented at trial. Highlighted procedural deficiencies in Defendant's request for jury instructions (paras 3-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on defense of another based on the Defendant's belief that his girlfriend was in imminent danger during their confrontation with loss prevention employees (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Defendant’s request for a jury instruction on defense of another (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Megan P. Duffy, J. Miles Hanisee, and Jane B. Yohalem, unanimously agreed that the evidence presented at trial did not support the giving of a defense of another instruction. The Court noted procedural deficiencies in Defendant's request for jury instructions but proceeded to the merits of his appeal. The Court found that Defendant did not present sufficient evidence of immediate danger of great bodily harm to his girlfriend to justify the instruction on defense of another using deadly force. The Court highlighted that the alleged choking incident, which Defendant cited as justification for brandishing a weapon, occurred approximately four minutes before the weapon was brandished, undermining the immediacy of the danger. Additionally, the Court found Defendant's generalized assertions of danger insufficient to meet the burden of demonstrating error in the district court’s ruling (paras 3-9).