People v. Fonseca Jr.

2026 COA 63. No. 24CA0007. Domestic Violence—Intimate Relationship—Bodily Injury—Sufficiency of Evidence—Prosecutorial Misconduct.

August 6, 2026

The victim reported to police that following an argument, Fonseca punched her in the face multiple times and pointed a gun at her. Fonseca was charged with third degree assault as an act of domestic violence and felony menacing. A jury found him guilty of the assault charge but acquitted him of menacing.

On appeal, Fonseca argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the prosecution failed to prove that the victim suffered bodily injury. He did not dispute that he struck the victim. To support a finding of bodily injury, the prosecution has to prove only some physical pain or impairment. Here, the victim testified that Fonseca struck her and the blows caused pain, bruising, and swelling on her face. And when she raised her hands to protect her face, the punches hurt her hands and dislodged some of her acrylic nails. The fact that Fonseca’s testimony contradicted the victim’s testimony did not render the evidence of bodily injury insufficient. Rather, it created a conflict in the evidence, which the jury resolved in the victim’s favor. The evidence was thus sufficient to support the jury’s bodily injury finding.

Fonseca also argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the prosecution failed to prove that the assault was an act of domestic violence. He maintained that the evidence did not establish that he and the victim were in an intimate relationship because their relationship involved only four interactions over three weeks of in-person contact. However, neither the relationship’s duration nor the frequency of contacts is dispositive. The court of appeals held that whether a defendant and victim were in an intimate relationship for purposes of a domestic violence finding is an objective, fact-intensive inquiry based on the totality of the evidence. Here, while the evidence of an intimate relationship was not overwhelming, a rational jury could have found that there was an intimate relationship. And even assuming, as Fonseca maintained, that a reasonable jury could have reached the opposite conclusion, the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if reasonable minds could differ.

Fonseca additionally contended that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. He asserted that during closing argument, the prosecutor misstated the evidence, improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility, and made arguments designed to inflame the jury. Fonseca did not object to any of the alleged misconduct. The court discerned no plain error in the prosecutor’s remarks. Accordingly, the court also rejected Fonseca’s cumulative error argument.

The judgment of conviction was affirmed.