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 of trafficking controlled substances and tampering with evidence after drugs were found in his anal cavity while being booked into the Eddy County Detention Center. The Defendant appealed these convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the trial evidence to support them.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for trafficking controlled substances and tampering with evidence.
• Defendant-Appellant (Michael Lopez): Contended that the trial evidence did not support findings that he intended to distribute the drugs found or that he hid the drugs. The Defendant also questioned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the amount of drugs to establish intent to distribute and challenged the evidence supporting a finding that he hid the drugs.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for trafficking controlled substances and tampering with evidence.
• Whether the amount of drugs found was sufficient to establish the Defendant's intent to distribute those drugs.
• Whether the evidence supported a finding that the Defendant hid the drugs.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for trafficking controlled substances and tampering with evidence.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Jennifer L. Attrep and Shammara H. Henderson concurring, the Court found the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. The Court distinguished the present case from State v. Becerra by noting that in this case, there was opinion testimony indicating the amount of drugs was not consistent with personal use, which addressed the Defendant's challenge regarding the sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to distribute (paras 2-3). Regarding the tampering with evidence conviction, the Court concluded that the Defendant did indeed hide the drugs by placing them in his anal cavity, despite his argument that the drugs were never hidden because the officers knew where they were (para 5). The Court emphasized that it would not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility, as these are matters for the jury (paras 3-4).