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 case involves the Defendant, Marcello Silva, Jr., who was convicted of one count of aggravated stalking based on violation of a protective order. The events leading to the conviction stemmed from phone calls made by the Defendant to the Victim, R.O., in May and June 2008, where he made repeated threats to kill her. The Defendant and Victim had a history of a seven-year relationship, were not married but had three children together. A protective order was issued against the Defendant in January 2007, which he violated by making these phone calls (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the State improperly commented on his silence during rebuttal, the court erred in denying his requested jury instruction, improperly allowed testimony about past conduct and expert testimony by a police officer, claimed insufficient evidence for conviction, and contested the order to pay child support as part of probation terms (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the rebuttal comment was a permissible response to the Defendant's closing argument, the jury instruction was properly rejected, the testimony of the Victim and the officer was within discretion, evidence was sufficient for conviction, and the court had discretion to order child support payment as part of probation (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's comment during rebuttal argument was impermissible and deprived the Defendant of due process by improperly shifting the burden of proof.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's requested jury instruction.
• Whether the court erred in allowing the Victim and a police officer to testify regarding past conduct and as an expert, respectively.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction.
• Whether the court erred in ordering the Defendant to pay child support as part of the terms of probation (para 1).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's conviction, holding that the State's rebuttal comment was permissible, the rejection of the Defendant's jury instruction was proper, the testimony of the Victim and the officer was within the court's discretion, there was sufficient evidence for conviction, and the court acted within its discretion in ordering child support payment as part of probation terms (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Roderick T. Kennedy and Michael E. Vigil concurring, the court reasoned that the prosecutor's rebuttal was a direct response to the defense's argument and did not constitute an impermissible comment on the Defendant's silence. The requested jury instruction by the Defendant was not supported by evidence, and thus its rejection was proper. The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the Victim's testimony about past conduct and the police officer's expert testimony, as these were relevant to the case. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to support the conviction of aggravated stalking. Lastly, the court had the authority under NMSA 1978, Section 31-20-6 to order the Defendant to pay child support as part of his probation terms, which was found to be reasonably related to his rehabilitation (paras 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, 25-26).