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

• Defendant Skeeter Chadwick was accused of stealing twenty-five head of no-brand cattle from the Ganada ranch and transporting them to San Angelo, Texas, for sale. Kendale Hendrix, who was separately charged, assisted in the theft by loading the cattle and picking up the Defendant. An off-duty cattle inspector reported the shipment as potentially illegal, leading to the discovery of the cattle at a sale barn in San Angelo, where one calf was refused due to weakness. Hendrix and Chadwick had an agreement regarding the sale proceeds (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Otero County: Granted Defendant’s motion to merge the larceny counts in the indictment.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the unit of prosecution for larceny of livestock under Section 30-16-1(G) is per head of cattle stolen, supporting this with legislative history, statutory language, and framework, and contended that the single-larceny doctrine does not apply (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellee (Skeeter W. Chadwick): Successfully moved to merge the larceny counts in the indictment, presumably arguing that the theft constituted a single act of larceny under the single-larceny doctrine (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the unit of prosecution for larceny of livestock under Section 30-16-1(G) is per head of cattle stolen.
• Whether the single-larceny doctrine applies to the theft of multiple head of cattle from the same owner at the same time and place (para 3).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to merge the larceny counts in the indictment was affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Megan P. Duffy, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, C.J., and Zachary A. Ives, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, relying on the precedent set in State v. Torres, which clarified the unit of prosecution under Section 30-16-1(G) according to the single-larceny doctrine. This doctrine posits that when multiple items are stolen from the same owner at the same time and place, it constitutes a single act of larceny. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Defendant could only be found guilty of one count of larceny of livestock for the theft of multiple head of cattle under the circumstances described (paras 3-4).