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, who served as a pastor and treasurer for a charitable organization, was charged with larceny over $20,000 for allegedly funneling money from a Church through the organization to his personal accounts over nearly a decade. Evidence at trial included testimony from the Church treasurer and churchgoers about their contributions intended for the Church, not the organization, and the Defendant's management of the organization's account, including deposits and withdrawals to his personal accounts. The Defendant claimed his actions were a mistake (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, James Waylon Counts, District Judge, where the Defendant was convicted for second-degree larceny (over $20,000) in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-1 (2006).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was a fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on the single criminal intent doctrine for the numerous transactions leading to the larceny charge, insufficient evidence to support the larceny conviction, and a fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on the limitations period for some transactions (para 5).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant should not benefit from a single-larceny instruction as it contradicted his trial theory that he mistakenly believed contributions were intended for the Alliance, which the jury rejected (para 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's failure to instruct the jury on the single-larceny doctrine constituted fundamental error.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's larceny conviction.
• Whether the district court erred in not instructing the jury on the statute of limitations for some of the aggregated transactions (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial, based on the failure to instruct the jury on the single-larceny doctrine. The court did not address the additional claim of error regarding the statute of limitations due to the decision to remand (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Chief Judge M. Monica Zamora and Judge Jennifer L. Attrep concurring, found that the district court's failure to instruct the jury on the single-larceny doctrine constituted fundamental error. This doctrine posits that multiple takings from the same owner and place, if driven by a single criminal intent, constitute a single larceny. The Court determined that it could not conclude as a matter of law whether the Defendant's actions were driven by a single criminal intent, thus necessitating jury instruction on this issue. Despite finding fundamental error, the Court also reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence to ensure that a retrial would not violate the Defendant's rights against double jeopardy, concluding that substantial evidence supported the larceny conviction. The Court did not address the statute of limitations issue but provided guidance for its consideration on remand (paras 6-18).