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-Appellant, Oscar Oropeza, was convicted by a jury for robbery. The conviction stemmed from an incident where the Defendant took bottles of liquor from a store clerk by force and then consumed them in the parking lot.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Marci E. Beyer, District Judge, June 20, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to exclude witnesses due to the State's delay in scheduling witness interviews, which allegedly violated his right to effective cross-examination. Additionally, he contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for robbery, particularly questioning the evidence on the sequence of events and the intent to permanently deprive the store clerk of property.
• Appellee: The State's arguments are not directly provided in the decision, but it can be inferred that the State argued against the Appellant's claims, supporting the trial court's decisions and the sufficiency of the evidence for the robbery conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to exclude witnesses based on the State’s delay in scheduling witness interviews.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for robbery.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for robbery.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Michael D. Vigil and Jennifer L. Attrep concurring, the court found:
  Regarding the motion to exclude witnesses, the court held that without an intentional refusal to comply with a court order, prejudice to the opposing party, and consideration of less severe sanctions, exclusion of a witness is improper. The Defendant did not demonstrate how the State's actions caused actual prejudice to his case or that there was an intentional failure to comply with an order (paras 2-3).
  On the sufficiency of the evidence for robbery, the court noted that the presence of contrary evidence supporting acquittal does not provide a basis for reversal, as it is within the jury's purview to resolve conflicts in testimony and determine the credibility of witnesses. Furthermore, the court clarified that the law does not require the victim of a robbery to be the owner of the property taken, and based on the facts presented, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery when the Defendant took liquor bottles from the store clerk by force and then consumed them (paras 3-4).