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 charged with first-degree murder and tampering with evidence after shooting and killing Harvey Saavedra. The Defendant admitted to throwing the gun in a dumpster post-shooting and argued self-defense at trial. The jury acquitted the Defendant of the murder charges but convicted him of tampering with evidence (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant was convicted of third-degree tampering with evidence and that the district court erred by sentencing the Defendant for a petty misdemeanor instead of a third-degree felony (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Cory William Chandler): Argued in favor of the district court's decision to sentence for petty misdemeanor tampering, based on the jury's verdict and the applicable law (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by sentencing the Defendant for petty misdemeanor tampering with evidence instead of a third-degree felony (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to sentence the Defendant for petty misdemeanor tampering with evidence (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Duffy, J. (Hanisee, C.J., and Ives, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not err in sentencing the Defendant for petty misdemeanor tampering with evidence. This decision was based on the 2003 amendments to the tampering with evidence statute, which introduced a tiered offense and sentencing scheme correlating the punishment for tampering with the level of the underlying crime. The jury's general verdict was insufficient to support an enhanced penalty because it lacked a specific finding that the tampering related to a first- or second-degree felony. The jury instructions and verdict form did not conform to the requirements that would allow for such a determination, leading to the conclusion that the tampering conviction must be classified under the "indeterminate crime" provision for sentencing purposes (paras 4-12).