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

• In July 2019, a Roosevelt County Sheriff Deputy attempted to arrest the Defendant for an outstanding warrant and driving on a suspended license. The Defendant fled to a trailer park, where he was apprehended following a foot chase. During a search incident to arrest, deputies found a glass pipe with residue that tested positive for methamphetamine, among other items. The Defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia (para 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was entitled to a jury instruction for possession of drug paraphernalia as a lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance. Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (para 7, 14).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Responded that possession of drug paraphernalia is no longer a crime and thus no instruction should be given. Argued that there is no case law supporting giving a lesser included offense instruction for a civil penalty and that the Uniform Jury Instructions do not override the Legislature's decriminalization of possession of drug paraphernalia. Also argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance (para 8, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction for possession of drug paraphernalia as a lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

Disposition

• The district court's denial of the Defendant's requested lesser included offense jury instruction was affirmed.
• The Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance was affirmed (para 13, 19).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jacqueline R. Medina writing, concurred by Judges Jane B. Yohalem and Katherine A. Wray, held that possession of drug paraphernalia, having been decriminalized from a misdemeanor to a penalty assessment, is not a crime and therefore not a lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance. The Court distinguished the current legal status of drug paraphernalia possession from its previous criminal classification, noting legislative clarity in its decriminalization. The Court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance, affirming the applicability of precedent that any amount of a controlled substance is sufficient for a conviction under Section 30-31-23(A). The Court declined to overrule previous case law establishing this principle, emphasizing the statute's clear language and the legislative intent not to require a minimum amount for a violation (paras 7-18).