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, a minor, was observed by Officer Huerta removing a beer from his midsection, which was concealed by a t-shirt. Upon interaction, the officer inquired if the Defendant had purchased the alcohol found in his possession. The Defendant was under the age of 21 at the time and admitted to stealing the beer. He contended that he discovered the alcohol in his truck upon stopping for gas and was in the process of removing it to avoid being found with it when he was apprehended holding it.

Procedural History

• District Court of Eddy County, J. Richard Brown, District Judge: Convicted the Defendant, after a bench trial, of being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the facts do not support his conviction, contending that he was only in temporary control of the beer, which he had discovered in his truck and was attempting to dispose of to avoid being found in possession of it.
• Appellee (City of Artesia): Presented evidence that the Defendant was observed removing a beer from his midsection, was under the legal age for alcohol possession, and admitted to stealing the beer, thereby supporting the conviction for being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Legal Issues

• Whether sufficient evidence existed to convict the Defendant of being a minor in possession of alcohol, considering the Defendant's claim of attempting to dispose of the alcohol upon discovery in his vehicle.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction of being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Timothy L. Garcia, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence from a deferential standpoint, focusing on whether substantial evidence supported the verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for every essential element of the conviction. The Court found that the City of Artesia presented substantial evidence of the Defendant's illegal possession of alcohol, including observations by Officer Huerta and the Defendant's admission of stealing the beer. The Defendant's argument that he was only in temporary control of the beer with the intent to dispose of it was not persuasive enough to overturn the conviction. The Court emphasized that it is the role of the fact-finder to resolve conflicts in testimony and determine the credibility of witnesses, indicating that the presence of contrary evidence supporting acquittal does not necessitate reversal of the conviction.