IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 29,094 4 EUGENIA SMITH, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 7 Teddy L. Hartley, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 12 Eleanor Brogan, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 KENNEDY, Judge. 17 Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction 18 for battery upon a peace officer, contraryto NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-24 (1971). 19 We issued a calendar notice proposing to summarily affirm the district court. 202 Defendant filed a timely memorandum in oppos ition, which we have duly considered. 1 Unpersuaded, we affirm. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support her 4 conviction after a bench trial for battery upon a peace officer. [MIO 2-4] “Substantial 5 evidence review requires analysis of whether direct or circumstantial substantial 6 evidence exists and supports a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect 7 to every element essential for conviction.” State v. Kent , 2006-NMCA-134, ¶ 10, 140 8 N.M. 606, 145 P.3d 86. On appeal, “[w]e determine whether a rational factfinder 9 could have found that each element of th e crime was established beyond a reasonable 10 doubt.” Id. We view the evidence in the light mo st favorable to the verdict, resolving 11 all conflicts and indulging all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. State v. 12 Apodaca , 118 N.M. 762, 766, 887 P.2d 756, 760 (1994). 13 The offense of battery upon a peace o fficer consists of “the unlawful, 14 intentional touching or application of for ce to the person of a peace officer while he 15 is in the lawful discharge of his duties, when done in a rude, insolent or angry 16 manner.” Section 30-22-24(A). To convictDefendant of battery upon a peace officer, 17 the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Defendant 18 intentionally and unlawfully touched or applied force to Officer Earl Borden; 193 (2) Defendant’s conduct caused anactual injury to Officer Borden, an actual threat to 1 his safety, or a meaningful challenge to hi s authority; (3) Defendant acted in a rude, 2 insolent, or angry manner; and (4) at the time, Officer Borden was a peace officer and 3 was performing the duties of a peace officer. See UJI 14-2211 NMRA. 4 In satisfaction of these requirement s, the State introduced evidence that 5 Defendant was incarcerated at the time of the battery. [DS 2] Officer Borden had 6 taken Defendant to the dentis t and was returning her to the detention center when the 7 incident occurred. [Id.] Officer Borden testified that when he attempted to return 8 Defendant to her designated cell she refused to enter and slapped him across the face. 9 [Id.] Defendant admitted that she slapped Officer Borden but testified that she was 10 in pain and wanted to talk with the lieutenant. [DS 3] 11 In satisfaction of the first and second elements of the offense, the State 12 presented evidence that Defendant intentionally and unlawfully applied force to 13 Officer Borden by slapping him and that Defendant’s conduct cau sed an actual injury 14 and was a meaningful challenge to authority. See State v. Padilla , 1997-NMSC-022, 15 ¶ 2, 123 N.M. 216, 937 P.2d 492 (holding that Section 30-22-24 “includes as unlawful 16 only those acts that physically injure officers, that actually harm officers by 17 jeopardizing their safety, or that meani ngfully challenge their authority”). With 18 respect to the first element, Officer Borden testified th at Defendant slapped him when 194 he tried to return her to her cell. [RP 226] Defendant admitted to slapping the officer 1 and admitted her conduct was wrong. [DS 3; RP 227-28] Turning to the second 2 element, the State introducedevidence that Defendant’s conduct caused an actual 3 injury and was a meaningful challenge to au thority. Officer Borden testified that the 4 slap caused bruising and a headache. [RP 226] Another officer testified that Officer 5 Borden’s face had a red mark after the slap and turned black and blue the next day. 6 [RP 227] In addition, evidence was introducedto prove that De fendant’s conduct was 7 a meaningful challenge to authority through testimony that Defe ndant slapped Officer 8 Borden while he was trying to place her in her cell and that other officers had to take 9 over to complete the task. [RP 226] 10 To satisfy the third element of acting ina rude, insolent, or angry manner, the 11 State introduced testimony from two officer s that Defendant argued with Officer 12 Borden and resisted his attempts to return her to her cell. [RP 226-27] Officer 13 Borden’s testimony that he was attempting to place Defendant back in her cell after 14 taking her to the dentist supports the fourthelement that Officer Borden was a peace 15 officer performing his duties at the time of the battery. [RP 226] 16 Based on the evidence just discussed, our calendar notice proposed to reject 17 Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. In response, Defendant 18 asserts without further argument that the State was only able to prove that she 195 committed simple battery and not battery on a peace officer. [MIO 4] Defendant also 1 argues that she was in pain due to her in fected tooth and her behavior was due to 2 Officer Borden’s unfair treatment. [Id. ] Despite these arguments, Defendant’s 3 memorandum in opposition does not persuade us that our understanding of the 4 evidence is incorrect. We therefore hold th at sufficient evidence supports the district 5 court’s determination that Defendant intentionally and unlawfully applied force to 6 Officer Borden by slapping him in the face, that her conduct resu lted in actual injury 7 and a meaningful challenge to authority, thatDefendant acted in a rude, insolent, and 8 angry manner, and that at the time OfficerBorden was performing his duties as a 9 peace officer. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For these reasons, we summarily affirm Defendant’s conviction. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

__________________________________ 14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 156 WE CONCUR: 1

__________________________________ 2 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 3

_________________________________ 4 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 5