Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 04-24-2021
Case Style:
State of New Mexico v. Tyler S. Phillips
Case Number: A-1-CA-39282
Judge: J. Miles Hanisee
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Plaintiff's Attorney: Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Albuquerque, NM - Criminal defense attorney represented TYLER S. PHILLIPS with appealing his convictions for battery upon a peace officer and resisting.
Defendant renews his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. [MIO 1-5]
4 Because the relevant background information has previously been set forth, we will
5 avoid undue reiteration here, and focus instead on the newly-advanced substantive
6 content of the memorandum in opposition.
7 {3} We understand Defendant to tacitly acknowledge that the evidence presented
8 by the State was sufficient to support his conviction for resisting, evading, or
9 obstructing an officer. [MIO 1, 4] See, e.g., State v. Gutierrez, 2007-NMSC-033, ¶ 36,
10 142 N.M. 1, 162 P.3d 156 (finding sufficient evidence to support a conviction where
11 the defendant ignored and then ran from the arresting officer). We therefore adhere
12 to our initial assessment of this matter.
13 {4} With respect to the conviction for battery upon a peace officer, Defendant
14 specifically challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his intent. [MIO 4-
15 5] However, the circumstantial evidence supplied adequate support for the requisite
16 inference. See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-111, ¶¶ 14-15, 144 N.M. 705, 191
17 P.3d 563 (upholding a conviction for battery on a peace officer where the evidence,
18 when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, established that the defendant3
1 initially fled, and later struck the officer in the face as the officer was placing him
2 under arrest); see generally State v. Nozie, 2009-NMSC-018, ¶ 32, 146 N.M. 142, 207
3 P.3d 1119 (acknowledging that intent is seldom subject to proof by direct evidence,
4 and accordingly, intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence). We therefore
5 reject Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Outcome: Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: