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 found guilty of criminal, misdemeanor harassment by the district court. The case involved the State amending the criminal complaint to include evidence of events that occurred more than two years prior, which the Defendant argued was in violation of the statute of limitations.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Taos County, Jeff McElroy, District Judge, May 20, 2014: Convicted the Defendant of criminal, misdemeanor harassment.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by allowing the State to amend the criminal complaint and present evidence of events more than two years old, violating the statute of limitations. Also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for harassment.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by permitting the State to amend the criminal complaint and present evidence of events which were more than two-years-old in violation of the statute of limitations.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence presented to support the Defendant's conviction for harassment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s conditional discharge order, convicting the Defendant of criminal, misdemeanor harassment.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Linda M. Vanzi and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, the Court of Appeals found the Defendant's arguments on appeal unconvincing. The Court held that the district court did not err in permitting the criminal complaint to be amended and in ruling that the complaint was timely. Furthermore, the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for harassment, based on the proposed analysis and the Defendant's response which did not present any new factual or legal arguments to persuade the Court otherwise (paras 1-5).