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

• Danny Kurinko was convicted for driving on a suspended or revoked license. The conviction was based on evidence including a revocation notice from the Motor Vehicle Division due to a DWI Criminal Conviction and a subsequent notice of revocation from another drunk driving incident. Kurinko was found carrying multiple licenses from several states, none of which was valid.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Danny Kurinko): Argued that the documentary evidence was inadmissible due to lack of foundation and that there was insufficient evidence to prove he knew or should have known his license was suspended or revoked.
• Appellee (City of Bloomfield): Presented documentary evidence from the Motor Vehicle Division and testimony to support the conviction, arguing that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated Kurinko's awareness of his license revocation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting certain documentary evidence without laying a proper foundation.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Kurinko's conviction for driving on a suspended or revoked license.

Disposition

• The court affirmed Kurinko’s conviction for driving on a revoked or suspended license.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the documentary evidence was admissible as it was certified by the director of the Motor Vehicle Division and stamped with the seal of the State of New Mexico, establishing the necessary foundation under Rule 11-803(H)(1) (paras 2-3). Kurinko's challenge based on the right to confront witnesses was dismissed due to the proper foundation for the evidence and lack of argumentation on how the evidence was testimonial (para 4).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that the evidence presented at trial, including the revocation notices and the testimony regarding Kurinko's reaction and possession of multiple invalid licenses, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Kurinko knew or should have known his license was revoked (paras 5-7).