Cluster 4461663

Cf. id. (“[S]pecific intent is not an essential element of aggravated assault.”).

He contends that State v. Branch, 417 P.3d 1141, 1148 (N.M.

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 25, 417 P.3d 1141 .

Stat. Ann. § 30-3-1 (B); see New Mexico v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 12–18, —N.M.—, 417 P.3d 1141 (reasoning that defendant need not intend to assault the victim but must do an unlawful act that caused the victim to reasonably fear an imminent battery).

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 25, 417 P.3d 1141 .

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 25, 417 P.3d 1141 .

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 52, 417 P.3d 1141 (recognizing that the “mere possibility” that evidence might have helped the defendant or affected the outcome of the trial “does not establish materiality” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 57, 417 P.3d 1141 (“[T]he standard is not whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s unexplained conclusion.

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA- 031, ¶¶ 49, 52, 54, 417 P.3d 1141 (concluding that, in light of “[t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial,” the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a lost evidence jury instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 49, 52, 54, 417 P.3d 1141 (concluding, in light of “[t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial,” that the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a lost evidence jury instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {10} We also find it significant that Defendant was able to cross-examine Officer Gar…

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 49, 52, 54, 417 P.3d 1141 (concluding, in light of “[t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial,” that the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a lost- evidence jury instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 11 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 (holding there w…

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 57, 59, 417 P.3d 1141 (remanding to the district court for findings as to whether the defendant committed a serious violent offense, noting that such findings are “both important and required”); State v. Scurry, 2007-NMCA-064, ¶ 14 , 141 N.M. 591 , 158 P.3d 1034 (noting that “the district court did not complete its responsibility to provide sufficient findings” and remanding to the district court for findings as to whether the defendan…

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 52, 417 P.3d 1141 (recognizing that the “mere possibility” that evidence might have helped the defendant or affected the outcome of the trial “does not establish materiality” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {25} Moreover, while cross-examining Detective Shelden, Defendant questioned him about Defendant’s level of cooperation during the interview, but chose not to cross- examine Detective Shelden about Defendant’s demea…

See 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 32-34, 417 P.3d 1141 . {44} Baroz and Branch are directly applicable here.

See 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 32-34, 417 P.3d 1141 . {44} Baroz and Branch are directly applicable here.

See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 12-13, 417 P.3d 1141 (reviewing the defendant’s argument that the State was required to prove specific intent to frighten or put the victim in fear of immediate battery in order to convict him of aggravated assault as ultimately raising a question of interpretation of the assault statute, subject to de novo review); see also State v. Myers, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶ 13 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (setting forth standards of review for a case…

See Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 31. {19} “When two statutes survive Blockburger, we look to the language, history, and subject of the statutes, and we must identify the particular evil sought to be addressed by each offense.” State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 30, 417 P.3d 1141 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).