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 September 13, 2012, Alex Romero was at home when he heard a loud noise resembling glass shattering. Upon investigation, he discovered a window had been broken by a brick, similar to those found in front of his house. He then saw the Defendant, Stacy Romero, hastily leaving the scene in her BMW. The cost to repair the window damage was less than $1,000 (paras 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction, maintaining her innocence by stating she did not throw the brick, was not seen with a brick, had no motive to throw the brick, and highlighted the investigating officer's failure to check the brick for fingerprints (para 3).
• Appellee (State): Contended that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction, as testified by Alex Romero regarding the circumstances of the property damage and the Defendant's actions (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal damage to property (less than $1,000).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Stacy Romero for criminal damage to property (less than $1,000) (para 5).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, with MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE and MICHAEL E. VIGIL concurring, the Court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction. The Court emphasized that it views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, indulges all reasonable inferences, and resolves conflicts in favor of the verdict without reweighing the evidence. The Court rejected the Defendant's arguments for insufficient evidence, noting that the factfinder is free to reject the Defendant’s version of the facts. The Court relied on established legal principles that contravene evidence supporting acquittal does not necessitate reversal, as the factfinder has the discretion to determine the credibility of the evidence presented (paras 3-4).