This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 29,708 9 CHRISTINA E., 10 Child-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 12 Freddie J. Romero, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 17 Eleanor Brogan, Assistant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 WECHSLER, Judge. 22 Child appeals the judgment and disposition in which the district court found 232 that Child committed the offense of public affray. We proposed to affirm the district 1 court’s decision in a calendar notice, and Child has responded to that notice with a 2 memorandum in opposition. We have duly c onsidered Child’s arguments, but we are 3 not persuaded by them. We therefore affirm. 4 Child continues to claim that there wa s insufficient eviden ce that she committed 5 public affray. Child points to evidence that Child did not want to fight and that the 6 other student (Amber) struck the first blo w. To find that Child committed the offense 7 of public affray, the jury wa s required to find that the two students voluntarily, or by 8 agreement, engaged in a fight or used blow s or violence towards each other; that Child 9 acted in an angry or quarrelsome manner; and that the incident occurred in a public 10 place to the disturbance of others. NMSA 1978, § 30-20-2 (1963). We view the 11 evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, resolvi ng all conflicts and 12 indulging all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. State v. Apodaca , 118 13 N.M. 762, 765-66, 887 P.2d 756, 759-60 (1994). 14 There was evidence that Child had been previously involved in two other fights 15 with Amber, the two students exchanged remarks, the two students then moved 16 toward each other, the two students were throwing punches and calling each other 17 names, and this occurred in a school hall where others were located. We hold that the 18 evidence presented by the State was sufficien t to support the determination that Child 193 committed the offense of public affray. To the extent that Child relies on other 1 evidence in support of her claim that the ev idence was insufficient, that evidence was 2 conflicting evidence that was re solved by the factfinder. See State v. Rojo , 1999- 3 NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (filed 1998) (“Contrary evidence 4 supporting acquittal does not provide a basis fo r reversal because the jury is free to 5 reject [the d]efendant’s version of the facts.”); see also State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC6 060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789 (“The reviewing court does not weigh the 7 evidence or substitute its judgment for thatof the fact finder as long as there is 8 sufficient evidence to support the verdict.”). 9 Child continues to argue that she should have been allowed to submit a jury 10 instruction on self-defense. At trial, af ter the State presented its evidence, Child 11 moved for a directed verdict and asked that the jury be given an instruction on self12 defense. The district court determined that, based only on evidence presented by the 13 State, a self-defense jury instruction would not be given. The district court stated that 14 Child “would have an opportunity to reappl y for such an instruction” after Child 15 presented her case. [DS unnumbered 4] Child then presented her case. During 16 Child’s testimony, she was “directly” aske d if she was afraid, and she responded, 17 “no.” [DS unnumbered 4-5] Child was thenasked if she expected the blows to 18 continue after the first blow was made, and she responded, “yes.” [DS unnumbered 194 5] At the close of her case, Child madea second motion to submit a self-defense 1 instruction to the jury. The district court denied the motion on the basis that Child had 2 testified that she was not afraid. 3 Child claims that she was, in fact, put in fear of immediate bodily harm after 4 Amber threw the first punche s, and her actions in de fending herself from Amber’s 5 blows resulted from that fear. [MIO 10] As discussed in our calendar notice, Child 6 had engaged in two prior fights with Amber, Child moved toward Amber just before 7 engaging in the fight, Child testified thatshe expected Amber to hit her and to 8 continue to hit her, and Child testified that she was not afraid of Amber at the time 9 that she moved toward her. Although Child refers to testimony that she did not want 10 to fight and that she was onl y talking and not yelling at Am ber, she did not testify that 11 she was in fear of immediate bodily harm orthat her actions resulted from that fear. 12 The district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. 13 For the reasons discussed above and inour calendar notice, we affirm the 14 district court’s decision. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

______________________________ 17 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 18 WE CONCUR: 195 _______________________________ 1 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 2

_______________________________ 3 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 4