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 on multiple counts related to falsifying an affidavit of residency to assist an individual in obtaining a New Mexico driver's license. The affidavit falsely claimed that the individual lived with the Defendant at a specified address. The Defendant's convictions were based on events occurring on February 16, 2010, involving the submission of this affidavit to the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD), which included a photocopy of the Defendant's driver's license (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Brett R. Loveless, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the affidavit of residency was not properly authenticated, signing his name on an affidavit containing a false statement did not constitute forgery, the district court erred in jury instruction on forgery, and testimony on the conspiracy charge was improperly admitted (para 1).
• Appellee: Contended that the affidavit was properly authenticated, the Defendant's actions constituted forgery, the jury instructions were appropriate, and testimony regarding the conspiracy charge was admissible (paras 4-8, 10-20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the affidavit of residency was properly authenticated (para 4).
• Whether signing an affidavit with false information constitutes forgery (make or alter) (para 9).
• Whether the district court erred in jury instruction for forgery (issue or transfer) by not including specific language (para 3).
• Whether it was error to admit testimony on the conspiracy charge from witnesses whose statements were not in furtherance of a conspiracy (para 19).

Disposition

• The convictions for forgery (make or alter), forgery (issue or transfer), and conspiracy to commit forgery (issue or transfer) were reversed (para 22).
• The conviction for perjury was affirmed, and the case was remanded for resentencing on that count (para 22).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., Jonathan B. Sutin, J., concurring):
  The court found that the affidavit was properly authenticated based on testimony from an MVD manager, who was deemed a person with knowledge of MVD's practices and procedures (paras 4-8).
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for forgery (make or alter) and forgery (issue or transfer) because the Defendant did not make or manufacture a false document but rather filled out a genuine MVD affidavit form with false information. This did not meet the legal definition of forgery, which requires falsity as to the genuineness or authenticity of the document, not the falsity of statements contained within a legitimate document (paras 9-18).
  The court concluded that the conspiracy conviction could not stand because the act of issuing or transferring an affidavit with false information did not constitute issuing or transferring a forged affidavit as required for a conspiracy to commit forgery charge (para 19).
  The perjury conviction was upheld because the affidavit was properly admitted into evidence, and the Defendant's actions met the criteria for making a false affidavit under the Motor Vehicle Code. The court remanded the case solely for resentencing on the perjury count (paras 20-21).