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 for distributing marijuana. The conviction stemmed from a police operation where officers, through an informant who communicated in Spanish, initiated exchanges with the Defendant, leading to the sale of fourteen pounds of marijuana. The Defendant challenged the conviction on grounds including the late disclosure of a witness and the denial of requested jury instructions on entrapment.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge: Conviction for distributing marijuana.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying a motion to exclude testimony from a late-disclosed witness and by refusing requested jury instructions on entrapment. The Defendant contended there was no evidence of predisposition to sell drugs and suggested the police operation involved unfair inducement.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the district court's decisions, arguing that the late disclosure of the witness did not constitute reversible error and that the Defendant failed to establish a factual basis for entrapment instructions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to exclude testimony from a witness disclosed two days prior to trial.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's requested jury instructions on entrapment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on both the motion to exclude testimony and the jury instructions on entrapment.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, with MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring, provided the opinion. The Court found no reversible error in the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to exclude testimony, citing State v. McDaniel as precedent and noting the Defendant's failure to provide new facts, authority, or argument to persuade the Court otherwise. Regarding entrapment, the Court concluded the Defendant did not establish a factual basis for subjective or objective entrapment instructions. The Defendant's claims of unfair inducement and targeting by police were rejected due to lack of evidence and legal authority. The Court emphasized that police operations targeting specific individuals suspected of criminal activity are permissible and do not constitute entrapment.