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 voyeurism. The case reached the Court of Appeals following a conviction in the District Court.
Procedural History
- Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Robert Schwartz, District Judge: Conviction for voyeurism.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Conceded that the jury was improperly instructed.
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued for the reversal of his conviction on the basis that the jury was improperly instructed.
Legal Issues
- Whether the jury was improperly instructed in the Defendant's trial for voyeurism.
Disposition
- The Court reversed and remanded the Defendant's conviction for voyeurism.
Reasons
-
Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Michael E. Vigil, J., concurring): The Court proposed to reverse the Defendant's conviction due to improper jury instructions, a position the State conceded. Given the State's agreement with the Court's proposed disposition and its unnecessary request for an extension of time to respond, the Court found no need for further response and proceeded to reverse and remand the conviction for voyeurism.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.