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

• Defendants Gerardo Torres, Kendale Hendrix, and Skeeter Chadwick were accused of stealing several head of cattle from ranches in Otero County. The State charged each Defendant with one count of livestock larceny per animal allegedly stolen, resulting in multiple-count criminal informations. Defendants filed motions to merge or dismiss the multiple charges, asserting that they may only be prosecuted for each episode of theft, not per animal stolen (paras 1, 4-6).

Procedural History

• District Court: Charges determined to be multiplicitous and dismissed accordingly.
• Court of Appeals: Affirmed the district court's orders in all three cases, holding that Defendants could not be punished for each animal stolen during a single episode of theft (paras 7-8).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Argued that the livestock larceny statute intended to authorize multiple punishments for the larceny of each animal stolen.
• Defendant-Respondent (Gerardo Torres, Kendale Hendrix, Skeeter W. Chadwick): Contended that the charges should be merged under the common-law single-larceny doctrine or double-jeopardy principles, asserting prosecution should be for each episode of theft, not per animal (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the livestock larceny statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-16-1(G) (2006), expresses an intent to prosecute Defendants for an alleged larceny of each animal.
• Whether Defendants' indictments were multiplicitous, charging a single offense in several counts in violation of double-jeopardy principles (paras 2-3, 12).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' conclusion but through a different reasoning path. It held that the livestock larceny statute does not express an intent to prosecute Defendants for each animal stolen but for each episode of theft (para 2).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Thomson, J., conducted a two-step analysis developed in Herron v. State to determine the unit of prosecution of the livestock larceny statute. It concluded that the Legislature did not express an intent to authorize multiple punishments for the larceny of multiple animals based on the theft of multiple animals. The Court considered the statutory language, legislative history, purpose, and quantum of punishment prescribed under the statutory scheme. It determined that the statute expresses an intent to prosecute for each episode of theft, not per animal stolen. The Court also disavowed the single-larceny doctrine as a separate basis for its decision, emphasizing that the relevant inquiry is whether the legislature intended punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act. The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (paras 13-53).