 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mann6/6/2000
eputy Johnston was attempting to get [Defendant] to let go of the child. [Defendant] was rocking and making some noises, kind of like grunting, also saying things to the nature of if they move him they will kill him." Deputy Johnston testified that Defendant was adamant about the child not being moved. According to Deputy Johnston, Defendant stated "Don't pull the screwdriver out[;] you will kill him." Richard Kearnery, a paramedic with the Bernalillo Fire Department testified that Defendant told him not to pull the screwdriver out and that Defendant was growling and showing his teeth. Mr. Kearney testified as well that normally you do not remove objects that have penetrated someone until the injured person is in an emergency room or operating room.
Having reviewed and considered these facts, we hold that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Defendant feared his son was put in danger by the actions of Ms. St. Jeor and that those fears were reasonable. See Gallegos, 104 N.M. at 250, 719 P.2d at 1271; see also State v. Ungarten, 115 N.M. 607, 611, 856 P.2d 569, 573 (Ct. App. 1993) (stating that when there is evidence presented in support of a defense, however slight, it is the court's duty to instruct on the defense).
The State claims that the "hybrid test" adopted by our Court in Gallegos, 104 N.M. at 250, 719 P.2d at 1271, precludes the giving of the instruction in this case. We disagree. Under the hybrid test, there must be "evidence that an objectively reasonable person, [placed in] Defendant's subjective situation, would have thought that [his son] was threatened with [harm], and that the use of . . . force was necessary to prevent the threatened injury ." Duarte, 121 N.M. at 557, 557-58, 915 P.2d at 313, 313-14. The State contends Defendant's actions were unreasonable per se and consequently an objectively reasonable person would not have acted as Defendant acted. Dr. Roll, however, essentially testified that it was not unlikely for a person in Defendant's subjective position to act in that manner.
We hold that there was sufficient evidence presented to require the giving of the defense-of-another instruction as a defense to the charge of aggravated battery on a household member.
C. Whether Extraneous Material Reached the Jury and, if so Whether the State Rebutted the Presumption that the Extraneous Material Was Prejudicial
This subsection of the opinion represents only the dissenting view of the author. Judge Armijo's opinion, joined by Judge Wechsler, represents the majority opinion of the Court on Issue 1.
I will address Issues 1(a) and 1(b) together, rephrasing those issues because I believe the proper inquiry in this case is whether the State has rebutted any presumption of prejudice that might arise from the introduction of extraneous material.
Defendant contends that Juror No. 7 relied on his expertise as an engineer, as well as his background in physics, in performing calculations that discredited Defendant's expert witness, and as a result, brought extraneous material before the jury. The State disputes that contention. According to the State, by performing calculations and presenting them to the jury, Juror No. 7 was simply filtering the evidence presented through his engineering experience and sharing that experience with the jury within the context of the deliberation process. I disagree. By filtering the evidence, to use the State's description, Juror No. 7 was using his "scientific, technical or other specified knowledge assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence." Shamalon Bird Farm v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 111 N.M. 713, 714, 809 P.2d 627, 628 (1
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|