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 in a bench trial for transporting livestock without inspection and for failing to exhibit written evidence of ownership or legal possession of the livestock. The Defendant argued that the horses she was transporting were wild and not domesticated, thus not subject to the inspection and ownership evidence requirements.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chaves County, Dustin K. Hunter, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State improperly charged her under a general statute rather than a specific statute related to the transportation and inspection of horses and certain other animals. Contended that the horses were wild, not domesticated livestock, and therefore not subject to the inspection requirement. Also argued that a bill of sale produced several days after the transaction should be considered sufficient evidence of ownership or legal possession.
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was improperly charged under a general statute instead of a specific statute related to the transportation and inspection of horses and certain other animals.
• Whether the horses transported by the Defendant were considered "livestock" subject to inspection and ownership evidence requirements.
• Whether a bill of sale produced several days after the transaction can be considered as "other written evidence of" ownership or legal possession at the time the Defendant was stopped and the horses were impounded.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The Defendant's convictions were summarily affirmed.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the issue of charging under a general versus specific statute not viable for amendment because the Defendant's prosecution under the more general statute did not result in a greater penalty, and both statutes classified the conduct as a misdemeanor offense (paras 3-6).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the horses were wild and not domesticated livestock, noting that the district court found substantial evidence to support the conviction, including the presence of branded horses among those transported by the Defendant (paras 7-8).
  Regarding the bill of sale, the Court concluded that producing a bill of sale several days after the transaction did not exempt the Defendant from prosecution, as the law does not provide an exception for evidence of ownership produced after it was requested by an inspector (para 10).