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

• On March 6, 2010, the Smoke Shoppe in Silver City, New Mexico, was robbed at gunpoint by a woman wearing dark, baggy clothing and a hooded jacket. The robber, who pointed a handgun at the store's sole employee, Jennifer Rael, demanded and received all the money from the register, totaling approximately $600. Rael was able to observe the robber's face several times during the incident, which lasted less than thirty seconds. Following the robbery, Rael provided a description of the robber and the getaway vehicle to the police. Based on confidential information received later, the police identified Teresa Madrid as a suspect, leading to her arrest and charges of armed robbery, bribery or intimidation of a witness, and larceny over $500 (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress an out-of-court photographic identification, claiming it was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable. Also contended that the in-court identification was derivative of the flawed out-of-court identification and that her convictions for both robbery and larceny constituted double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the convictions for both robbery and larceny constituted double jeopardy but maintained that the district court's decisions regarding the identification procedures were correct (paras 1, 27).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress the out-of-court photographic identification.
• Whether the in-court identification was admissible or, alternatively, whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to it.
• Whether the convictions for both robbery and larceny constitute double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's convictions for robbery and intimidation of a witness and vacated her conviction for larceny, agreeing that the convictions for both robbery and larceny constituted double jeopardy (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Linda M. Vanzi authoring the opinion and Judges James J. Wechsler and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, held that the district court did not err in its decisions regarding the photographic and in-court identifications. The court found the photo array was not impermissibly suggestive, noting that the array consisted of six photographs of Hispanic females of similar age and appearance, and that the witness had a sufficient opportunity to view the robber during the crime. The court also found that the witness's identification was reliable, considering factors such as the witness's opportunity to view the robber, the degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness's earlier descriptions, the certainty of the witness about the identification, and the time elapsed between the crime and the identification confrontation. Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the court agreed with the State's concession that the convictions for both robbery and larceny, based on a single incident, violated double jeopardy protections because larceny is a lesser-included offense of robbery. Therefore, the conviction for larceny was vacated (paras 5-29).