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 battery on a peace officer. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the Defendant allegedly kicked a peace officer. During jury deliberations, a question arose regarding the importance of intention at the time of the kick.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued for the affirmation of the Defendant's conviction.
• Appellant (Larry Walters): Challenged the district court’s response to a jury question during deliberations, arguing that it was insufficient and did not properly address the jury's inquiry about the role of intention in the battery case.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in its response to a jury question regarding the importance of intention in a battery case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, with Timothy L. Garcia and Stephen G. French, Judges concurring, authored the memorandum opinion. The court addressed the Defendant's appeal concerning the district court's response to a jury question during deliberations. The jury had inquired about the importance of intention at the time of the alleged kick, to which the district court instructed them to rely on the law as contained in the court's instructions (paras 2-3). The Defendant contended that the district court's response was inadequate, citing State v. Juan as a basis for arguing that the abuse-of-discretion standard of review was inapplicable. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that unlike in Juan, the district court did respond to the jury's question and that the response was within the court's discretion as it directed the jury to the written instructions which presumably covered the necessary legal principles, including intent (paras 3-5). The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court's broad referral to the law contained in the written instructions was within its sound discretion and affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 6).