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 former overnight department manager at Lowe’s Home Improvement store, was convicted of larceny over $20,000 and burglary following an incident where money was stolen from the store. The Defendant had been fired two days before the incident and was accused of using his knowledge and access to steal cash from a safe. He presented an alibi, claiming he was in Cedar City, Utah, at the time of the theft, supported by testimony and receipts. However, the district court denied the requested alibi jury instruction based on the accompanying use note, and the jury found the Defendant guilty (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying the requested uniform alibi jury instruction, improperly excluded and admitted certain evidence, and contended that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the conviction and restitution order (para 8).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the accompanying Use Note to UJI 14-5150 prohibits giving an alibi instruction and argued that the alibi instruction was not necessary to explain the burdens because the elements instruction required the State to prove the Defendant's presence for both offenses (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the requested uniform alibi jury instruction.
• Whether the exclusion of Docimo’s preliminary hearing testimony and the admission of Nickel’s identification testimony were improper.
• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction and the restitution order (para 8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, expressing reservations about the categorical prohibition of the alibi instruction but concluded it was bound by precedent and the Use Note accompanying UJI 14-5150 (para 40).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found no error in the district court’s denial of the alibi instruction, adhering to the Use Note and Supreme Court precedent. It acknowledged the tension between the restrictions and the role of courts to safeguard rights but was bound by existing precedent. The Court also reviewed the national landscape of alibi law, noting New Mexico’s approach as the minority. It disagreed with the State’s arguments that the jury did not need a specific alibi instruction and could apply common sense, highlighting the risk of juror confusion or misdirection in the absence of such an instruction. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary rulings or in the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction and restitution order, despite expressing reservations regarding the Use Note’s directive against giving the alibi instruction (paras 9-39).