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 involved in an incident where he, along with a co-conspirator, attempted to shoplift two televisions valued at $1,798 from a store. They were thwarted by a loss prevention employee while trying to exit the store with the televisions in a shopping cart.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Raymond L. Romero, District Judge

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support convictions for shoplifting and conspiracy, specifically challenging the establishment of possession since the merchandise remained inside the store and questioning the sufficiency of evidence to prove an agreement to commit shoplifting over $500.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the testimony of the loss prevention employee and surveillance video provided sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to support the convictions for both shoplifting and conspiracy.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for shoplifting and conspiracy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for shoplifting and conspiracy.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with M. Monica Zamora and Stephen G. French concurring, the Court found the evidence sufficient to uphold the convictions. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence for possession in the shoplifting charge, noting that exclusivity of possession is not required and the Defendant's actions constituted control over the merchandise. Regarding the conspiracy conviction, the Court concluded that the jury could reasonably infer an agreement to commit shoplifting over $500 based on the Defendant's actions and the circumstantial evidence presented, despite the Defendant's argument to the contrary (paras 3-5).