State v. Russell, 36,251

Defendant Franklin Russell was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under NMSA 1978, § 30-3-2(A) and acquitted of a related battery charge.
Defendant appealed, arguing inconsistent verdicts required reversal.
The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing affirmance and explained the applicable law regarding inconsistent verdicts.
In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant shifted his description of the acquittal (from simple battery to aggravated battery) but raised the same legal contention about inconsistency.
The court declined to entertain the inconsistency challenge, noting precedent that appellate review focuses on convictions, not acquittals, and that sufficient evidence supported the assault conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inconsistent verdicts (conviction for aggravated assault with deadly weapon and acquittal on related battery) require reversal	State: The conviction is valid; appellate review looks to the conviction and sufficiency of evidence	Russell: The conviction is inconsistent with his acquittal, requiring reversal	Affirmed: Court refuses to entertain inconsistency challenge; conviction stands because sufficient evidence supports it

State v. Roper, 131 N.M. 189 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (appellate review focuses on verdicts of conviction, not acquittals)
State v. Fernandez, 117 N.M. 673 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994) (same principle: review the conviction, not the acquittal)
State v. Mondragon, 107 N.M. 421 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (party opposing summary disposition must point out specific errors)
State v. Harris, 297 P.3d 374 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory/superceding discussion cited in procedural context)