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

• Goodfella’s Bail Bonds hired the Defendant, a fugitive recovery agent, to locate a client who failed to appear for a traffic court case. The Defendant located the client, drove her to a bank, and collected $1,050, claiming $950 as his fee and $100 to re-post a bond. The client later paid an additional $800 in installments. The State argued the Defendant fraudulently obtained these payments by misrepresenting the need for the $100 to re-post a bond and the $800 as repayment for a bond, neither of which were true as the original bond had been exonerated and no new bond was posted (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant fraudulently obtained payments from the client by falsely claiming they were for bond-related fees, which were either unnecessary or never fulfilled (paras 3-7).
• Defendant-Appellant (Daniel Goldberg, Sr.): Contended that he was entitled to collect the money as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Goodfella’s and the client, arguing that the payments were legitimate fees for his services (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the Defendant's theory that he received the money legitimately as a third-party beneficiary of a contract.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the convictions for two counts of fraud were affirmed (para 12).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Zachary A. Ives, J. Miles Hanisee, and Kristina Bogardus, concluded that the Defendant's theory of being a third-party beneficiary was a matter for argument to the jury rather than for a jury instruction. The Court found that the district court provided adequate instructions on the law of fraud and allowed the Defendant to present his theory during closing arguments. The Court held that the jury instructions given, based on UJI 14-1640 NMRA, adequately informed the jury of the applicable law without the need for a separate third-party beneficiary instruction. Thus, the district court did not err in its decision (paras 9-11).