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 was convicted of trafficking controlled substances (cocaine) and conspiracy to commit trafficking controlled substances after a jury trial. The case involved recorded out-of-court statements of a co-conspirator named Destiny, who acted as an intermediary in arranging a drug sale between the Defendant, his brother, and undercover police detectives. The Defendant argued that his mere presence during the drug transaction was insufficient for a trafficking conviction and sought to add a double jeopardy claim related to his convictions.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Brett R. Loveless, District Judge, convicting the Defendant of trafficking controlled substances and conspiracy to commit trafficking controlled substances.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in admitting recorded out-of-court statements and that the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts. Additionally, sought to amend the docketing statement to add a double jeopardy claim.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Opposed the Defendant's arguments and supported the district court's decisions on the admissibility of evidence and sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting certain recorded out-of-court statements.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for trafficking and conspiracy to commit trafficking violate double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to add a double jeopardy claim was denied.
• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges James J. Wechsler, Timothy L. Garcia, and J. Miles Hanisee, concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recorded out-of-court statements as they were deemed statements of a co-conspirator and did not violate the Defendant's right to confrontation. The Defendant's issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support his trafficking conviction was not persuasive to the Court, as it found that the Defendant's actions indicated an "outward manifestation or expression of approval" of the drug transaction. Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the Court determined that the Defendant's actions were sufficiently separated by time and place, and the quality and nature of the acts were distinguishable, thus not premised on unitary conduct. Consequently, there was no double jeopardy violation, and the motion to amend the docketing statement was denied (paras 1-12).