June 17, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Latrise B., No. A-1-CA-38624

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO	1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,	2
Plaintiff-Appellee,	3
v. 	NO. A-1-CA-38624	4
LATRISE B.,	5
Child-Appellant.	6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY	7
Fred T. Van Soelen, District Judge	8
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General	9
Santa Fe, NM	10
for Appellee	11
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender	12
Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender	13
Santa Fe, NM	14
for Appellant	15
MEMORANDUM OPINION	16
VARGAS, Judge.	17
{1} 	Child challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her adjudication	18
of delinquency based on committing battery. In this Court’s notice of proposed	19
disposition, we proposed to summarily affirm. Child filed a memorandum in	20
opposition (MIO), which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we	21
affirm.	22
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 6/17/2020 10:14 AM

2
{2} 	Child continues to argue in her MIO, in the absence of testimony from the	1
alleged victim, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Child’s act of hitting	2
the alleged victim was unlawful. [MIO 5] Child argues that the proposed summary	3
affirmance is premised on a misunderstanding of the record in that the alleged victim	4
did not call the police to report a battery by Child, but instead by a third party. [MIO	5
2, 4-5] Given the testimony that the officer met with the alleged victim prior to the	6
claimed battery, witnessed Child throw the alleged victim to the ground and punch	7
her, and that both Child and the alleged victim appeared to be mad or upset [MIO	8
2], the fact that Child was not the subject of the alleged victim’s initial call to police	9
is not dispositive. That the battery occurred without the alleged victim’s consent is	10
a logical inference from the officer’s testimony. See State v. Slade, 2014-NMCA-	11
088, ¶ 14, 331 P.3d 930 (“A reasonable inference is a conclusion arrived at by a	12
process of reasoning which is a rational and logical deduction from facts admitted	13
or established by the evidence.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation	14
omitted)); cf. State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006, ¶ 10, 113 N.M. 780, 883 P.2d 1146	15
(explaining that there must be “evidence or suggestion in the facts, however slight,”	16
to put the element of unlawfulness in issue).	17
{3} 	Child has not asserted any fact, law, or argument that persuades us that our	18
analysis of the evidence that the battery was unlawful was erroneous. See Hennessy	19
v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have	20

3
repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing	1
the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). As we stated in	2
our notice of proposed disposition, “[j]ust because the evidence supporting the	3
conviction was circumstantial does not mean it was not substantial[.]” State v. Rojo,	4
1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 23, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829.	5
{4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and	6
herein, we affirm Child’s adjudication of delinquency.	7
{5} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	8
_________________________________	9
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	10
WE CONCUR:	11
_________________________________	12
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge	13
_________________________________	14
BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge	15