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

• An undercover narcotics team from the Albuquerque Police Department conducted a buy-bust operation involving the Defendant and a confidential informant (CI) at a hotel. The operation led to the Defendant's arrest and the seizure of heroin and methamphetamine. The Defendant was subsequently charged and convicted for trafficking heroin (by distribution and by possession with intent to distribute) and trafficking methamphetamine (by possession with intent to distribute) (paras 2-4, 7).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Benjamin Chavez, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that her convictions for trafficking by possession with intent to distribute violated double jeopardy, the evidence was insufficient to sustain her convictions, her Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated, and the district court erred in denying her Pohl motion (para 1).
• Appellee: The State contended that the Defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy, there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions, and the trial court did not err in its rulings (paras 8-9, 15, 20-22).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for trafficking by possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin violate the prohibition against double jeopardy (para 8).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the Defendant's convictions (para 15).
• Whether the admission of evidence violated the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses (para 20).
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's Pohl motion (para 21).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions in all respects (para 25).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge M. Monica Zamora, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Stephen G. French concurring, held that:
  The Defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy as the Legislature intended to punish each separate transfer of controlled substances, and possessing both methamphetamine and heroin with intent to distribute constitutes separate transfers (paras 8-14).
  There was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, as the evidence presented at trial, including the circumstances of the buy-bust operation and the recovery of drugs and money, supported the verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 15-19).
  The Court declined to address the Defendant's Confrontation Clause claim due to insufficient specificity and lack of citations to the record proper by the Defendant (para 20).
  The district court did not err in denying the Defendant's Pohl motion for in camera review of Sergeant Stout's internal affairs records, as the records were not material to the Defendant's drug trafficking charges and the presence and testimony of multiple law enforcement officers at trial mitigated any potential prejudice (paras 21-24).