State v. Dye, 35,283

Defendant Steven Dye was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after an encounter with two City workers boarding his house.
On the day of the incident, City workers boarded the back door; Dye, inside, tried to remove plywood with a samurai sword, then squeezed out under a garage door while still armed.
Dye confronted the workers outside holding the sword; the workers testified they feared for their lives and the jury convicted.
On appeal, Dye sought reversal based on (a) denial of a defense-of-property instruction (abandoned), and moved to add issues challenging intent requirements, sufficiency of evidence, and entitlement to a necessity/duress instruction.
The Court of Appeals refused to allow amendment because the proposed issues were not viable: it declined to overrule existing precedent on intent, found the evidence sufficient, and rejected the necessity/duress claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether aggravated assault requires specific intent beyond general criminal intent	State: New Mexico law requires only general intent	Dye: Court should require specific intent for aggravated assault	Held: Court follows precedent requiring only general intent; issue not viable
Sufficiency of evidence that victims reasonably feared immediate battery	State: Testimony and circumstances support a reasonable fear	Dye: No evidence of threats, swinging, or chasing; sword pointed down	Held: Evidence sufficient; jury could credit victims and infer fear
Entitlement to necessity/duress instruction (UJI 14-5130)	State: No evidence supporting duress at time of encounter	Dye: He was trapped and acted to escape; continued possession of sword justified	Held: No evidence he was threatened after escape; duress not supported and no fundamental error
Motion to amend docketing statement to add new issues	State: New issues must be viable and preserved or show fundamental error	Dye: Asked to add issues as fundamental errors on appeal	Held: Motion denied because proposed issues are not viable

State v. Manus, 597 P.2d 280 (N.M. 1979) (general criminal intent suffices for aggravated assault)
State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (N.M. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence favorably to verdict)
State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (appellate courts disregard evidence favoring acquittal when upholding jury verdict)
State v. Benally, 34 P.3d 1134 (N.M. 2001) (instructional errors not preserved are reviewed for fundamental error)
State ex rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 89 P.3d 47 (N.M. 2004) (appellate courts must follow controlling Supreme Court precedent)