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 was convicted for shooting from a motor vehicle and tampering with evidence. The incident involved the Defendant allegedly discharging a firearm from within a vehicle with reckless disregard for the safety of others, as well as attempting to hide a Glock .45 pistol to prevent apprehension, prosecution, or conviction. The event took place on September 18, 2009, near downtown Artesia, where the shooting occurred at a roundabout at an intersection surrounded by various establishments.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the jury instruction on the charge of shooting from a motor vehicle constituted fundamental error, warranting reversal of his conviction on that charge. Additionally, the Defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for tampering with evidence.
• Appellee: The State argued to uphold the convictions, asserting that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for both shooting from a motor vehicle and tampering with evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury instruction on the charge of shooting from a motor vehicle constituted fundamental error.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence.

Disposition

• The conviction for shooting from a motor vehicle was reversed.
• The remaining convictions were affirmed.
• The case was remanded for further proceedings on the charge of shooting from a motor vehicle.

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge Cynthia A. Fry authoring the opinion and Judges James J. Wechsler and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found that the jury instruction on the charge of shooting from a motor vehicle constituted fundamental error. The instruction permitted conviction based on reckless disregard for the property of another, which does not align with the specific elements required by New Mexico law for the offense. This discrepancy allowed for the possibility of convicting the Defendant of a nonexistent crime under New Mexico law, thus constituting fundamental error and warranting reversal of the conviction on that charge.
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for the tampering with evidence charge, the Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient. The Defendant admitted to shooting the Glock and hiding it behind the radio in the vehicle to prevent police discovery, supporting the conviction for tampering with evidence.
  The Court did not address the Defendant's argument regarding the alleged erroneous admission of shell casings found on the street into evidence, as the conviction for shooting from a motor vehicle was reversed on other grounds.