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 case involves the Defendant, Arthur Scott, who was accused of shooting at a dwelling and causing criminal damage to property over $1,000. The incident occurred near the home of Patricia Juarez, her son, and her ex-boyfriend Daniel Gutierrez. Juarez and Gutierrez testified that they heard gunshots and saw the Defendant and his girlfriend, Audrey Fraley, near the scene. Gutierrez specifically saw Fraley shooting at his house first and then handing the gun to the Defendant, who also started shooting. The State presented evidence, including a video and photographs of firearms and ammunition found at the Defendant's residence, to support the charges (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence, including testimonies from Juarez and Gutierrez, a video recording, and physical evidence from the Defendant's home, supported the convictions for shooting at a dwelling and criminal damage to property over $1,000 (paras 2-6).
• Defendant-Appellant (Arthur Scott): Contended that the conviction for shooting at a dwelling was not supported by substantial evidence and that the conviction for criminal damage to property over $1,000 was flawed due to insufficient evidence of the damage amount and the Defendant's responsibility for it. The Defendant also challenged the admission of lay opinion regarding the cost of damages (paras 7, 11-15).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for shooting at a dwelling.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for criminal damage to property over $1,000.
• Whether the lay opinion about the cost of damages should have been excluded due to lack of adequate foundation.

Disposition

• The conviction for shooting at a dwelling was affirmed.
• The conviction for criminal damage to property over $1,000 was reversed due to insufficient evidence.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Kristina Bogardus, J. Miles Hanisee, and Zachary A. Ives, found that the testimony of Mr. Gutierrez and the incriminating statement by the Defendant, along with the physical evidence, provided sufficient support for the conviction of shooting at a dwelling (para 10). However, the Court reversed the conviction for criminal damage to property over $1,000, concluding that the evidence did not definitively show that it was the Defendant who caused the specific damage alleged. The Court reasoned that both the Defendant and Ms. Fraley were shooting at the house, and there was no direct evidence to determine who caused the damage. The Court also noted that the State did not pursue a theory of aiding and abetting or conspiracy between the Defendant and Ms. Fraley, and there was no evidence to support a conviction for the lesser included offense of misdemeanor criminal damage to property (paras 11-20).