Establishing Sufficient Evidence for Officer’s Actual Belief of Imminent Battery in Aggravated Assault Cases

Introduction

In State v. Johnson, 2025-NMCA-39827, the Supreme Court of New Mexico addressed whether the State introduced sufficient evidence that Sergeant David Warren actually believed Defendant Christopher Johnson was about to batter him, satisfying the “actual belief” element of aggravated assault under NMSA 1978, § 30-22-2. The case arose out of a high-speed vehicular pursuit on May 9, 2019, during which Johnson nearly struck Sergeant Warren with his van while attempting to evade a spike strip. After a jury convicted Johnson of aggravated assault on a peace officer, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the conviction sua sponte for insufficient evidence on the officer’s subjective belief. The State sought certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted review to clarify the sufficiency‐of‐evidence standard and reaffirm the role of “actual belief” in aggravated assault prosecutions against law enforcement officers.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded for reinstatement of the aggravated assault conviction. It held that:

The proper standard in a sufficiency review is highly deferential to the jury’s verdict, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict (State v. Galindo, 2018-NMSC-021; State v. Garcia, 2011-NMSC-003; State v. Atencio, 2024-NMSC-022).
Under UJI 14-2202 NMRA, an officer’s “actual belief” that the defendant was about to intrude on his bodily integrity is an essential element of aggravated assault on a peace officer (State v. Arrendondo, 2012-NMSC-013).
Testimony from Sergeant Warren—who described narrowly escaping being run over, feeling the air pressure of the van, experiencing an adrenaline response, and deeming the incident among the most dangerous of his career—coupled with corroboration by Deputy Evans and Sheriff Shepperd, was substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer the officer’s subjective fear of imminent battery.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the nonprecedential appellate decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its holding.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Galindo (2018-NMSC-021): Defined the “view-all-evidence-in-the-light-most-favorable” rule in sufficiency reviews.
State v. Garcia (2011-NMSC-003): Clarified that appellate courts look for “substantial evidence” supporting each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Atencio (2024-NMSC-022): Reinforced the deferential nature of appellate sufficiency analyses.
State v. Arrendondo (2012-NMSC-013): Established the necessity of proof that the victim—the peace officer—had an actual, subjective belief in imminent battery.
State v. Morales (2002-NMCA-052): Confirmed the State is not required to prove the defendant’s intent to injure; focus is on the victim’s belief.
State v. Soto (2020 NM Ct. App. mem. op.): Upheld aggravated assault convictions where victim’s fear and context supported the belief element despite contrary testimony.
State v. Montoya (2015-NMSC-010): Reiterated that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or assess innocence hypotheses in sufficiency reviews.

Legal Reasoning

The Court first reaffirmed the deferential standard for sufficiency-of-evidence challenges. Under Rule 12-502 NMRA, the burden is on the appellant to show that no reasonable fact‐finder could have found each element beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court then turned to UJI 14-2202, which requires that the defendant’s conduct have caused the officer to believe that force was imminent.

The Court found robust testimony by Sergeant Warren: he stated he was in “absolute” danger, describing the van speeding toward him, veering to avoid spikes, missing him by less than a foot, and triggering a pronounced fight‐or‐flight (adrenaline) reaction. On cross-examination, it did not matter whether, in hindsight, Warren believed Johnson intended to strike him; the jury needed only to find Warren’s subjective fear at the moment of the incident. Bystander testimony from Evans and Shepperd, who warned the officer over the radio and observed the near‐collision, further supported a reasonable inference that Warren believed he was about to be battered. The Court concluded this evidence was substantial and the Court of Appeals erred by focusing on isolated statements rather than the totality of the record.

Impact

This decision clarifies several critical points for future New Mexico prosecutions and appeals:

Appellate courts must respect the jury’s role and avoid sua sponte reversals on elements not challenged by the parties.
Defendants in aggravated assault cases cannot rely on hindsight reinterpretations of the officer’s testimony; the focal point is the victim’s contemporaneous belief.
Prosecutors should present layered evidence—direct testimony, bystander accounts, and contextual factors (speed, proximity, physiological response)—to meet the “actual belief” threshold.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sufficiency of the Evidence Review: A highly deferential review where all evidence favorable to the verdict is accepted, and the question is whether any rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actual Belief Element: The subjective perception by the peace officer that the defendant’s conduct posed an imminent threat of force upon the officer’s person, irrespective of the defendant’s own intent.
Writ of Certiorari: A discretionary petition to a higher court to review a lower court’s decision for legal errors, granted here under Rule 12-502 NMRA.
Sua Sponte: When a court raises or decides an issue on its own initiative, rather than at the request of the parties involved.

Conclusion

State v. Johnson crystallizes the evidentiary contours of aggravated assault on a peace officer in New Mexico, reaffirming that the officer’s actual, subjective belief of imminent battery is essential and that a wide array of testimony—direct and circumstantial—can satisfy this element. By reversing the Court of Appeals’ sua sponte insufficiency ruling, the Supreme Court underscored the deferential sufficiency standard, the importance of jury findings, and the necessity of holistic evidence presentation. This decision will guide practitioners in both trial strategy and appellate briefing, ensuring that future courts continue to honor the jury’s role in assessing evidence of subjective belief.