This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 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. 30,681 9 GUADALUPE URQUIZO, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 12 Teddy L. Hartley, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 17 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 KENNEDY, Judge. 22 Defendant appeals his conviction for aggr avated battery (deadly weapon). We 23 issued a calendar notice proposing to a ffirm. Defendant has responded with a 24 memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 2523 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 1 Defendant continues to claim that the di strict court should have granted him a 2 continuance to further review a videotap e and to interview w itnesses who may have 3 overheard a conversation involving the victim. [MIO 4] The granting or denial of a 4 continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the burden of 5 establishing abuse of discreti on rests with the appellant. See State v. Sanchez , 120 6 N.M. 247, 253, 901 P.2d 178, 184 (1995). 7 With respect to the videotape of the in cident, Defendant argued that he received 8 it less than one week before trial, and he needed more time to review it and discuss it 9 with Defendant and possible witnesses. [M IO 5] Defendant does not specify that 10 there was anything in the record that s upports the view that their testimony would 11 have been helpful to the de fense. [MIO 8-9] Defendanttestified that he merely 12 threatened Victim with the broom, and did not hit him. [MIO 4] There is no indication 13 that any witnesses would haverefuted the videotaped evidence. Accordingly, we 14 conclude that any prejudice from the denial of his motion is too speculative to 15 constitute reversible error. See In re Ernesto M., Jr. , 1996-NMCA-039, ¶ 10, 121 16 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d 318 (“An assertion of prej udice is not a showing of prejudice.”). 17 With respect to any out-of-court st atements made by Victim, Defendant 18 indicates that the court decided a continua nce was not necessary after hearing the in 194 camera testimony of a detention officer c oncerning the statements. [MIO 5] As we 1 stated in our calendar notice, it appears th at this post-incident comment would have 2 had little probative value, and defense counsel could haveasked Victim about it on 3 cross-examination. See State v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 4 829 (noting that an abuse of discretion occu rs when the ruling is clearly against the 5 logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.). 6 SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE 7 Defendant has argued that the district court erred in denying his motion for a 8 directed verdict on the deadly weapon elemen t of the assault charge. “The question 9 presented by a directed verdict motion is whether there was substantial evidence to 10 support the charge.” State v. Dominguez , 115 N.M. 445, 455, 853 P.2d 147, 157 (Ct. 11 App. 1993). A sufficiency of the eviden ce review involves a two-step process. 12 Initially, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Then the 13 appellate court must make a legal determination of “whe ther the evidence viewed in 14 this manner could justify a finding by any rational trier of fact that each element of the 15 crime charged has been estab lished beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Apodaca , 16 118 N.M. 762, 766, 887 P.2d 756, 760 (1994) (internal quotati on marks and citation 17 omitted). 185 Defendant’s specific challenge is whethe r a broom handle can be considered a 1 deadly weapon. [MIO 9] It is well-establis hed that “[w]here the instrument used is not 2 one declared by the statute to be a deadly weapon, it is ordinarily a question for the 3 jury to determine whether it is so, considering the character of th e instrument and the 4 manner of its use.” State v. Traeger , 2001-NMSC-022, ¶ 16, 130 N.M. 618, 29 P.3d 5 518 (alteration in original) (internal quotati on marks and citation omitted). In making 6 this determination, the jury must decide whether the object or instrument is a “weapon 7 which is capable of producing death or great bodily harm” or a weapon “with which 8 dangerous thrusts can be inflicted.” NMSA 1978, § 30-1-12(B) (1963); UJI 14-322 9 NMRA; State v. Anderson , 2001-NMCA-027, ¶ 15, 130 N.M. 295, 24 P.3d 327. As 10 Defendant appears to acknowledge [MIO 12], our case law is clear that an object such 11 as a broom handle may constitute a deadly weapon. See e.g. , id. ¶¶ 10, 14 12 (interpreting Section 30-1-12(B) in the contex t of a charge of aggravated stalking with 13 a stick as a d eadly weapon); Traeger , 2001-NMSC-022, ¶ 10 (interpreting Section 14 30-1-12(B) in the context of a charge of a ggravated battery with a baseball bat as a 15 deadly weapon). In short, a broom handle is capable of inflicting dangerous wounds. 16 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 186 1 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3

4 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 5

6 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge 7