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 involved in an incident where he attempted to evade police officers who were trying to apprehend him due to an outstanding warrant. During the pursuit, the Defendant was struck by a police vehicle, and upon arrest, methamphetamine was found in the front pocket of his jeans. The Defendant admitted to using methamphetamine but claimed he did not remember having it in his pocket (paras 5-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: The Defendant was convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove he knew he was in possession of methamphetamine, as required by the jury instructions. He also contended that the State failed to prove the jeans containing the methamphetamine belonged to him (paras 2, 4, 7).
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for possession of methamphetamine?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, upholding the Defendant's conviction for possession of methamphetamine (para 10).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Bogardus and Yohalem JJ. concurring): The Court found that the jury could infer the Defendant's knowledge of the methamphetamine from circumstantial evidence, including his actions and statements during the incident. The Defendant's attempt to evade police and his admission of methamphetamine use supported the inference of knowledge. The Court emphasized that it is the jury's role to resolve conflicts in evidence and determine credibility, and on appeal, all reasonable inferences are made in favor of the verdict. The Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the conviction (paras 3, 8-10).