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

• On Christmas Eve 2017, Shelby Pourier discovered her 2006 Toyota Scion, which had a Utah license plate and contained a spare key in the trunk, was stolen. Two days later, Albuquerque Police Department officers noticed the Scion in an unusual parking spot and attempted to stop it after confirming it was stolen. The Defendant, Hillary Anderson, was seen driving the Scion, fled from the police at high speed, and after a chase involving a spike belt and a crash, fled on foot but was apprehended. Anderson claimed she was picked up to run errands by a passenger, Juan Diego Montoya, who had a history of car theft and had instructed her not to stop for the police (paras 2-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove she knew or had reason to believe the vehicle was stolen, emphasizing her lack of knowledge about the car's status and asserting her actions were out of fear of Montoya (paras 10, 14, 17).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the evidence, including Defendant's flight from police and possession of the stolen vehicle, was sufficient to establish Defendant's knowledge or reason to know the vehicle was stolen (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle, specifically regarding her knowledge or reason to believe the vehicle was stolen (para 10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle (para 23).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Judges Kristina Bogardus and Megan P. Duffy concurring, held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's determination that the Defendant knew or had reason to believe the Scion was stolen. This conclusion was based on the Defendant's actions of fleeing from the police, her possession of the vehicle shortly after it was reported stolen, and her association with a known car thief. The Court found that these actions, combined with the circumstances of the case, allowed a reasonable jury to infer guilty knowledge. The Court also addressed and rejected the Defendant's argument that her flight should be considered as a single act under State v. LeFebre, clarifying that the case did not preclude considering all forms of flight as circumstantial evidence of guilt (paras 10-22).