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 fraud (over $20,000) and Medicaid fraud (false/excessive claims). The State alleged that the Defendant and another individual divided funds received as a result of improper billing, as shown by certain exhibits, including collections of purported ledgers and checks.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Dona Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge, January 28, 2013: Convictions for fraud and Medicaid fraud affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by admitting two exhibits under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, claimed insufficient evidence to support the convictions, and contended that the Medicaid fraud charge should have been dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the district court's decision to admit the exhibits and argued that there was sufficient evidence for the convictions and no violation of double jeopardy principles.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting two exhibits pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether the count alleging Medicaid fraud (false/excessive claims) should have been dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with concurrence from Linda M. Vanzi and J. Miles Hanisee, the Court found:
  The Defendant abandoned the issues of sufficiency of the evidence and double jeopardy by not contesting the proposed affirmance on these grounds.
  The Court proposed to affirm the district court's decision to admit the challenged exhibits, noting a broad interpretation of the "other qualified witness" language in Rule 11-803(F) NMRA and concluded that any error in admitting the exhibits was harmless. The Defendant failed to address the Court's proposed affirmance on harmless error grounds, and there was no indication that the admission of the exhibits affected the verdict.
  The Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to argue that the exhibits were misleading and confusing was denied due to lack of preservation of this issue for review and because the issue was not viable, given there was no reasonable probability that the admission of the exhibits affected the verdict.