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, Ubaldo Rodriguez, was convicted of multiple counts of trafficking and possession of a firearm by a felon. The charges stemmed from transactions facilitated by a confidential informant leading to three purchases by an undercover agent.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Angie K. Schneider, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence, particularly his own testimony, established objective entrapment as a matter of law. He contended that the police conduct exceeded the standards of proper investigation and that the jury instructions were flawed because they did not incorporate the absence of entrapment in the elements instructions (paras 3, 5-6).
• Appellee: The State, through its representation, opposed the Defendant's arguments but specific submissions from the State are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's own testimony established objective entrapment as a matter of law.
• Whether the jury instructions were flawed for not incorporating the absence of entrapment in the elements instructions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of the Defendant, Ubaldo Rodriguez, for multiple counts of trafficking and possession of a firearm by a felon.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Emil J. Kiehne, J., and Daniel J. Gallegos, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the Defendant's argument of objective entrapment was unpersuasive. The undisputed facts showed that police used a confidential informant for one purchase and an undercover agent made two more purchases, which did not constitute objective entrapment as it is reserved for the most egregious circumstances (para 3).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's assertion of error regarding the circular transaction theory, noting that the undercover officer's testimony effectively controverted the Defendant's account, and neither the district court nor the jury were required to accept the Defendant's version (para 4).
  Regarding the jury instructions, the Court remained of the opinion that the district court properly utilized the applicable Uniform Jury Instructions (UJIs). The Court explained that the entrapment defense does not alter the elements of the crime or create an issue as to the lawfulness of the Defendant's actions but rather raises the question of whether the Defendant's unlawful actions should be excused. Therefore, modification of the essential elements instruction was not required (paras 5-6).
  The Court also addressed the Defendant's contention regarding the modification of use notes associated with the defense of duress, stating that the Supreme Court's failure to modify the use notes associated with entrapment suggested no alteration was intended for the uniform jury instructions on entrapment (para 7).