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 of forgery and conspiracy related to passing counterfeit U.S. Currency. The case involved the Defendant tendering counterfeit bills to a cashier, which led to the charges and subsequent trial.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Jerry H. Ritter, Jr., District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the jury instruction on forgery was flawed because it did not define "counterfeit" and improperly suggested the bills were counterfeit, thus usurping the jury's role. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of the amendment to the indictment, particularly criticizing the credibility and actions of the cashier who testified about the counterfeit bills (paras 2-3, 6-8).
• Appellee: The State argued to uphold the convictions, maintaining that the jury instructions were appropriate and the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. Specific arguments from the Appellee are not detailed in the decision but are implied through the court's discussion and rejection of the Appellant's claims (paras 1, 5, 7-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury instruction on forgery was flawed for not defining "counterfeit" and for suggesting the bills were counterfeit, thus removing a critical question of fact from the jury's consideration.
• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for forgery and conspiracy.
• Whether the amendment to the indictment was proper.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The convictions for forgery and conspiracy were affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring):
  The court found that the term "counterfeit" has a common meaning and did not require a specific jury instruction to define it. It also held that the jury instruction did not remove the question of the bills' authenticity from the jury, as it required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the currency was counterfeit. The court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, noting that it is not the appellate court's role to re-weigh evidence or judge witness credibility. Concerning the amendment to the indictment, the court found no new material arguments that would warrant overturning the conviction. The court's decision was based on the principles that jury instructions need not define terms with common meanings and that appellate review does not extend to re-evaluating evidence or credibility determinations made at trial (paras 2-9).