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 armed, masked men robbed a CVS pharmacy in Albuquerque on January 30, 2015. Surveillance footage showed the men forcing pharmacy employees to the ground, with one man in a black hoodie directing a pharmacist to retrieve narcotics from a safe, while the other man, later identified as the Defendant and wearing a gray hoodie, watched over the employees. The Defendant, after removing his mask, asked a pharmacy technician for the location of Xanax, collected several bottles, and left with the accomplice. The robbery lasted just over two minutes (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial and a new trial based on a witness’s in-court identification of him and the jury’s re-enactment of part of the robbery. Also contended that his four trafficking convictions violated his right to be free from double jeopardy and were not supported by sufficient evidence (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the in-court identification did not violate the Defendant's due process rights and that the jury's actions did not introduce extraneous information into their deliberations. Additionally, conceded that two of the Defendant's trafficking convictions should be vacated on double jeopardy grounds but argued that the remaining convictions were supported by sufficient evidence (paras 6-23).

Legal Issues

• Whether the in-court identification violated the Defendant's due process rights.
• Whether the jury's re-enactment of part of the robbery introduced extraneous information into their deliberations.
• Whether the Defendant's multiple trafficking convictions violated his right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for trafficking and possession with intent to distribute (paras 4, 13, 17, 20).

Disposition

• Two of the Defendant's trafficking convictions were vacated on double jeopardy grounds.
• The remaining convictions were affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge (JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge and BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the in-court identification by a witness did not violate the Defendant's due process rights because there was no indication of any prior identification that could have tainted the in-court identification. The identification was based on the witness's direct observation during the crime, supported by surveillance footage, and not influenced by improper law enforcement conduct (paras 6-10). The Court also determined that the Defendant did not preserve the alleged discovery violation regarding the in-court identification for review (para 11). Regarding the jury's re-enactment, the Court concluded that the Defendant failed to show that extraneous information had reached the jury, as their actions were within the permissible scope of evaluating evidence (paras 13-16). On the issue of double jeopardy, the Court agreed that two of the trafficking convictions for substances with overlapping active ingredients should be vacated, but upheld the remaining convictions as they pertained to different controlled substances (paras 17-19). Lastly, the Court found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, noting that the quantity of drugs involved and the circumstances of the robbery supported an inference of intent to distribute (paras 20-23).