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 possession of a stolen vehicle. Evidence presented at trial included a stolen vehicle with visible damage and a screwdriver on the driver's seat. The Defendant was observed attempting to access the vehicle, fled upon police approach, and was subsequently apprehended (paras 7).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted for possession of a stolen vehicle.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred by not providing a supplemental jury instruction on the exercise of control, which is not an element of the offense but stems from the definition of possession. The Defendant also contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove he knowingly possessed the stolen vehicle (paras 4-5).
• Appellee: The State argued that the jury could infer knowledge and control over the stolen vehicle from the circumstantial evidence, including the Defendant's actions and the condition of the vehicle (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court committed fundamental error by failing to provide a supplemental jury instruction on the exercise of control.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle was affirmed (paras 2, 8).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, Kristina Bogardus, and Megan P. Duffy, unanimously affirmed the conviction. The Court found that the term "exercise of control" is a basic concept with a common meaning that jurors can reasonably apply without additional instruction. The Court also determined that the evidence presented, including the Defendant's actions and the condition of the vehicle, was sufficient for a rational jury to infer knowledge and possession. The Court rejected the Defendant's assertion that a more explicit or compelling evidence of possession was required for conviction (paras 4-8).