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 convicted following a jury trial for various crimes, including unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, conspiracy to commit unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, nonresidential burglary, conspiracy to commit nonresidential burglary, larceny, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The evidence presented at trial included the Defendant's statement placing her and her daughter near the scene of the crime, her daughter's actions in taking a vehicle and hiding when police arrived, the Defendant's presence in a vehicle with stolen items, and her inconsistent statements to police (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Valencia County, James L. Sanchez, District Judge, convicting the Defendant of multiple charges including conspiracy and larceny.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions, either as an accessory or as a conspirator. Contended that the jury's findings were based on speculation regarding her intent to commit the crimes or conspiracy to commit them (para 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Did not oppose the Defendant's double jeopardy claim regarding the conspiracy convictions (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting certain statements where the police officers allegedly did not comply with NMSA 1978, Section 29-1-16 (2005) (para 2).
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions (para 4).
• Whether one of the Defendant's conspiracy convictions should be reversed on double jeopardy grounds (para 2).

Disposition

• One of the Defendant’s conspiracy convictions is reversed on double jeopardy grounds, and the case is remanded to the district court to vacate one of the conspiracy convictions and to resentence accordingly (para 2).
• The court otherwise affirmed the Defendant's convictions (para 5).

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge concurring): The court found that the Defendant had abandoned her first appellate issue regarding the admissibility of certain statements and agreed with the Defendant’s double jeopardy claim, proposing to remand the case for appropriate action on one of the conspiracy convictions. The court disagreed with the Defendant's argument that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions, noting that a reasonable jury could infer from the evidence presented at trial, without resorting to speculation, that the Defendant intended to commit the crimes charged. The court highlighted the circumstantial evidence presented, including the Defendant's location in a vehicle containing stolen items and her following the stolen Crown Victoria, as substantial evidence supporting the convictions (paras 2-4).