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 issuing worthless checks. As the owner and president of DGM, she was responsible for meeting payroll and signed the paychecks for employees. The checks in question were issued when the company's bank account had insufficient funds, leading to the charges against her.

Procedural History

• State v. Cruz, 2011-NMSC-038, ¶ 40: The Supreme Court remanded the case to consider issues not decided in the initial opinion.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) there was insufficient evidence of intent to convict her of issuing a worthless check, (2) the district court erred in denying her motion for mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and (3) the district court should have excused two potential jurors for cause.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to convict the Defendant of issuing a worthless check.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
• Whether the district court should have excused two potential jurors for cause.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Cynthia A. Fry, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, held that:
  Sufficiency of Evidence of Intent: The evidence presented at trial, including the Defendant's role at DGM and her actions regarding the issuance of checks, supported the jury's finding of intent. The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction (para "Sufficiency of Evidence of Intent").
  Denial of Motion for Mistrial: The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's argument regarding prosecutorial misconduct. It noted that the Defendant's assertion of prejudice was based on a theory ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court. Thus, there was no ground for reversal on this issue (para "Denial of Motion for Mistrial").
  Failure to Excuse Potential Jurors: The Court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the Defendant's challenges for cause against potential jurors Eby and Britain. Both jurors were deemed capable of being fair and impartial, and the defense did not sufficiently question Britain during voir dire to establish bias (para "Failure to Excuse Potential Jurors").
  Issues Raised in Reply Brief: The Court declined to address issues raised for the first time in the Defendant's reply brief, including the argument regarding the June 2002 bank statement and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, citing procedural rules against raising new issues in a reply brief (para "Issues Raised in Reply Brief").