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 for failing to register as a sex offender, a requirement after his conviction of a sex crime on March 4, 2019. Despite being informed of the need to register any change of address within five days, the Defendant changed residences around a month later without submitting the required form. The Defendant's main defense was that he did not knowingly or willfully fail to register, suggesting he simply forgot (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant was fully informed of his obligation to register any change of address with the county sheriff and failed to do so after moving, constituting a willful or knowing failure to register as required by law (paras 2-6).
• Defendant-Appellant (Justin Kesterson): Contended that he did not knowingly or willfully fail to register his change of address, suggesting that he simply forgot to do so. He also pointed to his attempt to contact the sheriff's office after they tried to reach him as evidence supporting his lack of willful failure (paras 4, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender, specifically regarding the element of the Defendant's failure being willful or knowing (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for failure to register as a sex offender (para 9).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Julie J. Vargas, J. Miles Hanisee, and Megan P. Duffy, unanimously concurred in the decision. The Court applied the standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and resolving all conflicts therein in favor of the verdict. The Court found substantial evidence, including testimony from the investigating officer and the sex offender registration administrator, that the Defendant was clearly informed of the registration requirements and failed to comply after changing addresses. Despite the Defendant's claim of forgetting to register, the Court held that the jury was not required to accept this explanation and was at liberty to draw a reasonable inference of knowing or willful failure to register. The Court concluded that the verdict was supported by substantial evidence and therefore upheld the conviction (paras 1-8).