State v. Saavedra, 36,225

Defendant Cinderella Saavedra was convicted of aggravated battery without great bodily harm in San Miguel County and appealed.
At trial Saavedra testified she struck the victim “out of panic,” but evidence showed she had become enraged, pushed the victim, broke a pool stick in half, armed herself, and warned the victim not to approach.
The primary legal dispute is whether Saavedra’s testimony supported an instruction on simple battery as a lesser-included offense (i.e., that she lacked intent to injure).
The Court of Appeals issued a notice proposing to affirm; Saavedra filed a memorandum in opposition reiterating her panic testimony and citing case law.
The court examined the record and concluded the panic statement, viewed with other evidence, was inconsistent with lack of intent to injure and therefore did not warrant the lesser-included instruction.
The court denied Saavedra’s motion to supplement the record with jury questions and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence warranted a lesser-included instruction for simple battery	State: Evidence showed intentional conduct inconsistent with mere battery; no instruction warranted	Saavedra: Her testimony she struck “out of panic” showed lack of intent and supported a simple-battery instruction	Held: No; isolated panic claim plus surrounding conduct did not tend to show simple battery was the highest offense committed
Whether testimony about panic required treating conduct as without intent to injure	State: Other evidence (arming, prior push, warnings) showed intent to harm	Saavedra: Panic testimony indicated she lacked intent to injure	Held: Court found testimony inconsistent with lack of intent when viewed with other record evidence
Whether out-of-state authority on imperfect self-defense supports reversal	State: Cite controlling NM precedent; the out-of-state case is not persuasive	Saavedra: Cited People v. McKelvy for proposition that honest belief negates intent	Held: Not persuasive; McKelvy dictum not adopted and no controlling authority supports it
Whether juror questions showed some evidence of lack of specific intent	State: Jury questions seeking clarification do not establish evidence favoring lesser offense	Saavedra: Juror questions on "thinkless and spur of the moment" and "purpose and intention" show need for lesser instruction	Held: Questions insufficient to meet standard for lesser-included instruction; supplement denied

State v. Pettigrew, 116 N.M. 135, 860 P.2d 777 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993) (standard for when evidence tends to establish a lesser-included offense)
State v. Skippings, 150 N.M. 216, 258 P.3d 1008 (N.M. 2011) (distinguishable facts where defendant’s unarmed struggle supported lesser offense)
State v. Seal, 76 N.M. 461, 415 P.2d 845 (N.M. 1966) (sufficiency review of simple battery conviction)
State v. Hill, 131 N.M. 195, 34 P.3d 139 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (instructional issues on self-defense and related defenses)
In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (N.M. 1984) (court may assume lack of authority where party cites none)