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 charged with two counts of unlawfully obtaining a dangerous drug and multiple counts of forgery related to presenting forged prescriptions at Walmart and Kmart pharmacies. The prescriptions were purportedly signed by Dr. Jain, who testified that he did not authorize these prescriptions and had dismissed the Defendant from his practice prior to the dates on the prescriptions. The Defendant was found guilty on two counts of unlawfully obtaining a dangerous drug and two counts of forgery, with the jury finding her not guilty on other counts and hanging on one.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant knowingly presented forged prescriptions to obtain dangerous drugs and committed forgery by making or altering and issuing or transferring these prescriptions.
• Defendant-Appellant (Angela McGee-Gayford): Contended that her convictions violated double jeopardy principles, challenged the amendment of the information to include different theories of forgery, argued for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and claimed insufficient evidence supported her convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions for both unlawfully obtaining a dangerous drug and forgery violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court erred in constructively amending the information to charge forgery by issuing or transferring.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The court vacated the Defendant's convictions for forgery (Counts 3 and 6) due to double jeopardy concerns but affirmed her convictions for unlawfully obtaining a dangerous drug (Counts 1 and 2).

Reasons

• JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge (TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  Double Jeopardy: The court found that the conduct underlying the Defendant's convictions for unlawfully obtaining a dangerous drug and forgery was unitary, and the Legislature did not intend to punish the two crimes separately. Thus, the forgery convictions violated double jeopardy principles and were vacated (paras 14-23).
  Constructive Amendment of the Information: The court did not address the merits of the Defendant's argument regarding the amendment of the information because the issue became moot after vacating the forgery convictions related to this argument (para 24).
  Motion for a New Trial: The court upheld the denial of the Defendant's motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion. The court noted that the newly discovered evidence was primarily impeaching and did not meet the criteria for granting a new trial (paras 25-27).
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for unlawfully obtaining a dangerous drug, noting the circumstantial evidence and testimonies that supported the jury's findings (paras 29-36).