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

• A child, referred to as Terin S., was adjudicated delinquent for committing larceny by allegedly stealing $1,995 from a teacher's purse at school. The teacher, Ms. Walker, had the money in her purse, which she left in a locked desk drawer in her classroom. The money was intended for tax payments and her son. Surveillance footage and witness testimonies suggested that Terin S. entered the classroom without permission and was later seen with a significant amount of cash, which he displayed to classmates and a teacher.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to establish the corpus delecti of larceny, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for attempting to call a "rebuttal" witness during his case in chief, and contended that his demand for a jury trial was ignored when the district court set the matter for a hearing before a special master.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Presented evidence including testimony and surveillance footage to support the adjudication of delinquency for larceny over $500.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to establish the corpus delecti of larceny.
• Whether the child-appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Whether the child-appellant's right to a jury trial was violated by setting the matter for a hearing before a special master.

Disposition

• The decision of the district court to adjudicate the child delinquent for larceny over $500 was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court found substantial evidence supporting the adjudication, including testimony about the child's unauthorized entry into the classroom and possession of a large amount of cash shortly thereafter (paras 2-14).
  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The court concluded that the child-appellant did not make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting the absence of a record on the proposed testimony of the "rebuttal" witness and the impact it might have had on the outcome (paras 17-19).
  Demand for a Jury Trial: The court determined that the child-appellant's failure to object to the appointment of a special master or to renew his demand for a jury trial constituted a waiver of his right to a jury trial. The court suggested that any claim of ineffective counsel related to this issue would be more appropriately pursued in a habeas corpus proceeding (paras 20-21).