State v. Romero, 34,955

Michael A. Romero Jr. was a passenger in his sister Tabitha’s car; Officer Garcia recognized Romero and knew he had an outstanding warrant and initiated a traffic stop.
As the officer attempted the stop, Romero moved from the back to the front, opened the passenger door, then climbed onto Tabitha and took control of the steering wheel, forcing her to accelerate.
Tabitha and her two young children later escaped to the back seat; Romero drove off, led police on a high-speed chase, then abandoned the vehicle in a neighborhood; the vehicle was later found in a garage.
Romero was convicted of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle and of battery on a household member; two child-abuse counts resulted in a hung jury.
Romero appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence for both unlawful taking and battery on a household member; the State asked, alternatively, to remand for judgment and sentencing on simple battery as a lesser included offense.

Issue	State's Argument	Romero's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved unlawful taking of a jointly owned vehicle	Vehicle co-owner (Unruh) did not consent; Tabitha did not consent; Romero commandeered the vehicle	Conviction improper absent statutory amendment addressing split consent in jointly owned vehicle	Affirmed — evidence showed Romero took the vehicle without consent and forcibly seized control
Whether conviction for battery on a household member was supported and whether remand for simple battery is proper	Jury instructions error as to household-member definition but evidence supports lesser included offense (simple battery); remand permitted because Romero did not contest household-member status at trial	Insufficient evidence for simple battery; challenged battery conviction based on lack of proof	Reversed conviction for battery on a household member (Tabitha is not a "household member"); remanded to enter judgment and sentence for simple battery

State v. Sanders, 117 N.M. 452, 872 P.2d 870 (1994) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Astorga, 343 P.3d 1245 (N.M. 2015) (deferential view of evidence and reasonable inferences for sufficiency review)
State v. Haynie, 116 N.M. 746, 867 P.2d 416 (1994) (appellate courts may remand for judgment on lesser included offense when evidence supports it but not the charged offense)
State v. Villa, 136 N.M. 367, 98 P.3d 1017 (2004) (limits remand for lesser included offense when the defendant lacked notice or opportunity to defend against it)
State v. Notah-Hunter, 137 N.M. 597, 113 P.3d 867 (2005) (courts will not reweigh evidence when reviewing factual sufficiency)