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 of trafficking methamphetamine after selling the substance to an undercover police officer. The methamphetamine was obtained from a confidential informant, who was working with the undercover officer. The Defendant sought to present an entrapment defense, arguing that the police's involvement as both the supplier and purchaser of the contraband, with the Defendant acting merely as a conduit, constituted entrapment (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury should have been instructed on the defense of entrapment, given the evidence presented at trial supported such a defense. The Defendant highlighted the involvement of a confidential informant working with the police in supplying the methamphetamine, which was then sold to an undercover officer (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that there was no evidence to suggest the undercover officer or the drug task force supplied the methamphetamine to the confidential informant. Additionally, the State argued that the Defendant failed to provide prior notice of intent to offer an entrapment defense as required by Rule 5-508 NMRA, justifying the denial of the entrapment instruction (paras 4, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment (para 2).
• Whether the Defendant's failure to provide notice of intent to offer evidence of entrapment as required by Rule 5-508 NMRA justified the denial of an entrapment instruction (para 5).

Disposition

• The judgment of conviction entered by the lower court was reversed, and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion (para 8).

Reasons

• Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, J. Miles Hanisee, and Jane B. Yohalem concurred in the opinion. The appellate court found that the evidence presented at trial supported the Defendant's theory of entrapment, making the refusal to instruct the jury on this defense reversible error. The court distinguished the case from State v. Watley, noting that the issue was not the exclusion of evidence but the refusal to instruct the jury on a theory supported by the evidence admitted at trial. The court also determined that the proper remedy for failing to comply with Rule 5-508 NMRA's notice requirements did not include refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment but could involve excluding evidence intended to establish such a defense. Since the evidence necessitating an entrapment instruction was admitted at trial, the Defendant was entitled to an entrapment instruction (paras 4-7).