AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Joe Black, was convicted following a jury trial for trafficking methamphetamine (possession with intent to distribute) and possession of cocaine. The conviction was based, in part, on the testimony of Agent Wester from the Lea County Drug Task Force, who testified as an expert that possession of twenty-eight grams of methamphetamine is consistent with an intent to distribute. The Defendant challenged the admissibility of this testimony, arguing there was no evidence regarding the methamphetamine's strength or purity and that the dosage used by a habitual user varies based on the strength of the material ingested (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in allowing Agent Wester to testify as an expert without evidence of the methamphetamine's "strength or purity" and contended that there was a lack of foundation for Agent Wester’s opinion, thus a lack of evidence to establish possession with intent to distribute (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing Agent Wester to testify as an expert on the intent to distribute based on possession of twenty-eight grams of methamphetamine without evidence of the drug's strength or purity (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence entered following the Defendant's jury trial convictions (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., and Stephen G. French, J., concurring): The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Agent Wester had sufficient knowledge and experience to testify as an expert in distinguishing between possession of quantities consistent with personal use and trafficking. This conclusion was supported by precedent cases that addressed similar challenges and established that the relevant inquiry is whether the expert's knowledge and experience support a determination that his conclusions may be trusted (paras 3-4). The Court also was not persuaded that the district court erred in overruling the Defendant's lack of foundation objection to Agent Wester’s testimony regarding the purity level of methamphetamine sold on the street, suggesting that the jury was free to give the testimony whatever weight it saw fit. Given the evidence that the Defendant possessed twenty-eight grams of methamphetamine, the Court concluded there was substantial evidence to establish that the Defendant possessed methamphetamine with intent to distribute it (para 5). The Defendant's reliance on State v. Becerra was found to be distinguishable because, in the present case, there was expert testimony regarding the amount being too much for personal use, unlike in Becerra (paras 6-7).