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 three counts of automobile burglary. The State's evidence included expert testimony that the Defendant's DNA was found either in the burglarized vehicles or on items removed from those vehicles.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Douglas R. Drigger, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, highlighting expert testimony establishing the Defendant's DNA presence in the burglarized vehicles or on items taken from them.
• Appellant (Alree Bernie Sweat): Contended that the State's handling of the DNA collection and assessment protocol was flawed, pointing out the excessive quantity of DNA reference samples processed and a lack of documentation regarding chain of custody and DNA typing results.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for three counts of automobile burglary.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that the determinations of weight and credibility of evidence are reserved for the fact finder. The appellate court does not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. The Court found that the expert testimony provided by the State was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. Despite the Defendant's expert raising concerns about the DNA collection and assessment protocol, including the excessive quantity of DNA reference samples processed and a lack of documentation regarding chain of custody and DNA typing results, these issues were deemed to affect the weight of the evidence, which is a matter for the fact finder to resolve. The appellate court deferred to the lower court's determinations on these matters and affirmed the convictions based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented (paras 1-5).