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, while intoxicated, assaulted the victim, his girlfriend, during an argument. The Defendant shoved the victim, grabbed her by the neck, and banged her head against a brick wall multiple times. After the victim fell, the Defendant hit and kicked her. Both the Defendant and the victim were homeless at the time of the incident (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery against a household member with a deadly weapon and two counts of aggravated battery (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that a brick wall cannot be considered a deadly weapon as a matter of law because it is a stationary, non-wieldable object. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the jury instructions were erroneous, as they improperly directed the jury to treat the brick wall as a deadly weapon (paras 1, 4, 13).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that a brick wall can qualify as a deadly weapon based on its use and the injuries inflicted. The Plaintiff also argued that the jury instructions, while not perfectly phrased, did not constitute reversible error (paras 5, 16).
Legal Issues
- Can a brick wall be considered a deadly weapon under New Mexico law?
- Did the district court err in its jury instructions regarding the determination of whether the brick wall was a deadly weapon?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery against a household member with a deadly weapon and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 19).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Alarid and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
The Court held that whether an object not explicitly listed in the statutory definition of a deadly weapon qualifies as such is a factual question for the jury to decide, based on the object's character and manner of use (paras 5-6). The Court reasoned that a brick wall, though stationary, could be considered a deadly weapon if used in a manner capable of causing serious injury or death (paras 5, 8-9).
The Court reviewed precedent from New Mexico and other jurisdictions, concluding that stationary objects, such as walls or sidewalks, can qualify as deadly weapons depending on their use (paras 6-7).
The Court found that the jury instructions were erroneous because they ambiguously suggested that the brick wall was a deadly weapon as a matter of law, rather than leaving this determination to the jury. This ambiguity could have misled the jury and constituted reversible error (paras 13-18).
The Court emphasized that the proper jury instruction should have allowed the jury to decide whether the brick wall, given its use and the circumstances, was a deadly weapon (paras 15-18).
Consequently, the Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 19).