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 receiving stolen property and conspiracy to receive stolen property. The case involved the Defendant's association with Leo Carter, who attempted to dispose of stolen items. Various witnesses connected the Defendant to the disposal of these items, with some testifying that they were suspicious of the items being stolen. The Defendant was present with Carter during attempts to dispose of the items and assured a witness that nothing was stolen (paras 1, 13-14).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Jerry H. Ritter, Jr., District Judge: Convictions for receiving stolen property and conspiracy to receive stolen property were affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that due process was violated due to the State's witnesses mentioning uncharged conduct despite a court order prohibiting such references, which prejudiced the Defendant's right to a fair trial. Also contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove the Defendant knew or believed the property was stolen or that he helped dispose of it (paras 2-3, 9).
• Appellee: Maintained that the Defendant's due process rights were not violated as the issue was not preserved for appeal, and argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions (paras 2-3, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was denied due process when the State's witnesses mentioned uncharged conduct in violation of a court order, prejudicing the Defendant's right to a fair trial (para 2).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for receiving stolen property and conspiracy to receive stolen property (para 9).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's convictions for receiving stolen property and conspiracy to receive stolen property (para 15).

Reasons

• The court, consisting of Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, Michael E. Vigil, and M. Monica Zamora, concluded that the Defendant's due process argument was not preserved for appeal because the Defendant failed to demonstrate that the issue was raised at trial in the context of a due process violation or a fair trial right infringement. The court also found that the Defendant did not preserve his argument regarding the testimony of Renate Osterholt being unduly prejudicial and denying him a fair trial. On the sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict, noting the Defendant's association with Carter and the circumstances under which the stolen items were disposed of. The court emphasized that the jury was free to reject the Defendant's interpretation of the evidence and that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or substitute their judgment for that of the jury (paras 2-14).