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 case involves the Defendant being convicted for receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle, specifically a 2007 Honda CBR Motorcycle. The motorcycle's owner, Tyler Bollinger, had allowed Ian Goodyear to take the motorcycle for a test drive on March 13, 2015, but Goodyear failed to return it. On March 16, 2015, the motorcycle was seen in the Defendant's driveway by George Dominguez, a friend of Bollinger. Bollinger informed the Defendant that the motorcycle was his and that it had not been returned by Goodyear. The Defendant expressed interest in purchasing the motorcycle but did not return it after taking it for a supposed test drive, according to Bollinger. The Defendant, however, denied taking the motorcycle for a test drive (paras 2).

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY, J. C. Robinson, District Judge: The district court issued a judgment and order suspending sentence, convicting the Defendant following a jury trial on one count of receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict, contending there was no evidence to establish that he knew or had reason to know the motorcycle was stolen or unlawfully taken when he had possession of it (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Provided a detailed statement of facts based on a CD recording of the trial to establish that the Defendant knew or had reason to know the motorcycle was stolen, highlighting the circumstances under which the Defendant came into possession of the motorcycle and his actions thereafter (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to prove he knew or had reason to know the motorcycle was stolen or unlawfully taken at the time he had possession of it (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and order suspending sentence convicting the Defendant (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL and JULIE J. VARGAS concurring: The Court found that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, a reasonable jury could infer from the facts presented that the Defendant knew or had reason to know the motorcycle was stolen at the time it was in his possession. This conclusion was based on the testimony regarding the Defendant's interaction with the motorcycle's owner and his failure to return the motorcycle upon request. The Court relied on established legal principles that allow for material facts to be proven by inference and for juries to draw necessary inferences to support a conviction (paras 3-4).