State v. Happy
A-1-CA-36210
N.M. Ct. App.Nov 13, 2017Background
- Defendant Emerson Happy was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon after an altercation in which two victims were stabbed and one suffered a collapsed lung.
- At trial, a victim identified a photograph of the attacker as the defendant; a police officer who confronted defendant at the scene also identified the same photograph as depicting defendant that day.
- Victim testimony described defendant yelling racial slurs, charging, swinging, engaging in a physical fight, and stabbing both victims during the struggle.
- Defendant appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence on identity and other elements; he also sought to raise additional sufficiency arguments and an ineffective-assistance claim after the docketing statement.
- The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm; after the defendant filed a memorandum in opposition, the court denied motions to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on identity | Victim and officer identifications suffice for a rational trier of fact to find identity beyond a reasonable doubt | Contends evidence was insufficient to prove he was the attacker | Affirmed: combined testimony supports identity under sufficiency standard (Cunningham) |
| Sufficiency on other elements (intent, use of deadly weapon) | Testimony of attack, stabbing, and injuries supports intentional application of force with a knife as deadly weapon | Argues evidence unclear on aggression, who wielded the knife, and other elements | Affirmed: testimony supports reasonable fact‑finder finding required elements beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Motion to amend docketing statement to add sufficiency arguments | State opposes belated new issues on appeal | Defendant asks to amend to raise additional sufficiency challenges for the first time in the MIO | Denied: issues raised too late and not viable to warrant amendment (Moore) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for withdrawing self‑defense instruction | State: counsel’s strategy to focus on identification was reasonable; no prejudice shown | Defendant: counsel was ineffective for withdrawing self‑defense instruction after defendant decided not to testify; self‑defense was supported by officer’s testimony that defendant said he had been attacked | Denied: counsel’s choice was a plausible tactical decision to avoid asking jury to believe and disbelieve the same witness; Strickland not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Cunningham, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 (2000) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Dylan J., 145 N.M. 719, 204 P.3d 44 (2009) (applying Strickland in New Mexico)
- Roybal, 132 N.M. 657, 54 P.3d 61 (2002) (deference to reasonable trial tactics in ineffective‑assistance claims)
- Brown, 122 N.M. 724, 931 P.2d 69 (1996) (instruction required when evidence supports defendant’s theory)
- Moore, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (1989) (denying motions to amend to raise nonviable issues)
- Herrera, 131 N.M. 22, 33 P.3d 22 (2001) (recognizing plausible tactical explanations for counsel’s conduct)