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

• Two defendants were charged with multiple counts of larceny (livestock) in separate incidents involving cattle rustling in Otero County, New Mexico. The first defendant, an employee at Crossroads Cattle Company, was accused of stealing and selling unbranded calves on two occasions in early 2017. The second defendant, known to haul cattle for Ganada Cattle Company, was implicated in the theft and sale of twenty-five head of no-brand cattle in August 2018. Both defendants were charged based on the number of cattle allegedly stolen (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County: The court granted both defendants' motions to merge the larceny counts into single charges based on the single-larceny doctrine and double jeopardy grounds. The State appealed these decisions (paras 6-7).

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the district court erred in merging the larceny counts into single charges, contending that the statute allows for separate punishments for each animal taken (para 8).
• Defendants: Advocated for the application of the single-larceny doctrine, suggesting that the theft of multiple animals from the same owner at the same time and place constitutes a single offense (para 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the theft of multiple animals under NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-1(G) should be punished as a single offense or allow separate punishments for each animal taken (para 8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders to merge the larceny counts into single charges for each defendant (para 29).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Duffy, J., with Hanisee, C.J., and Ives, J., concurring, held that the district court correctly determined the unit of prosecution under Section 30-16-1(G). The court found the statutory language ambiguous regarding whether the theft of multiple animals constitutes single or multiple offenses. It further concluded that the legislative history, purpose, and quantum of punishment did not clearly define a unit of prosecution. Applying the single-larceny doctrine, the court reasoned that the theft of multiple head of cattle at the same time and place, or a series of takings from a single owner with a single criminal intent, constitute a single larceny. Thus, the district court did not err in merging the counts into single charges for each defendant (paras 9-28).