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 fourth degree felony larceny over $500.00, which was enhanced due to his habitual offender status. The conviction stemmed from an incident involving the theft of property valued over $500.00.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the district court erred by allowing the State to use evidence that had not been disclosed prior to trial (para 2).
• Appellee: The State contended that even if the evidence was not disclosed, the Defendant had notice that the photos would be used well before the trial, as the evidence was disclosed in another case that was eventually dismissed (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing the State to use evidence it had not disclosed prior to trial.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the Defendant's conviction for fourth degree felony larceny over $500.00, enhanced by his habitual offender status (para 3).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J., with Timothy L. Garcia, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring:
  The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to use the undisclosed evidence. This decision was based on the finding that the Defendant had prior notice of the evidence's use from another case, negating any claim of prejudice due to non-disclosure. The lack of demonstrated prejudice from the non-disclosure was a key factor in affirming the conviction (paras 1-3).