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, employed as a bookkeeper for a property management service, was responsible for handling financial transactions, including collecting rents and making deposits. Over a seven-week period, approximately $3,000 in cash was discovered missing from seven rental accounts. The Defendant confessed during a polygraph test to taking the money and signed two statements admitting to the embezzlement.

Procedural History

• Trial court: The Defendant was convicted of seven counts of embezzlement. The court denied the Defendant's motion to merge the charges under the single-larceny doctrine and did not instruct the jury on the intent required to distinguish separate offenses.
• State v. Brooks, 116 N.M. 309, 862 P.2d 57 (Ct. App. 1993): The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the single-larceny doctrine did not apply as a matter of law under the facts of the case.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the single-larceny doctrine should apply, merging all counts into a single charge, as the acts were part of a continuous scheme with a single intent. Alternatively, the Defendant contended that the jury should have been instructed to determine whether the takings were motivated by a single intent or separate impulses.
• State: Asserted that the single-larceny doctrine did not apply because the Defendant was not always entrusted with making deposits, and the takings were separate acts. The State also argued that the jury instructions on intent were sufficient and that the Defendant's challenge should focus on the sufficiency of evidence for each charge.

Legal Issues

• Whether the single-larceny doctrine applies to the Defendant's actions, requiring the charges to be merged into a single count.
• Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the intent required to distinguish between separate offenses and a continuous scheme.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and the trial court on the single-larceny issue and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Reasons

Per Ransom J. (Baca and Frost JJ. concurring):

• The single-larceny doctrine applies when successive takings are motivated by a single, sustained criminal intent, as established in prior cases such as State v. Allen and State v. Pedroncelli. The doctrine requires the jury to determine whether the acts were part of a continuous scheme or separate offenses unless the court can decide the issue as a matter of law.
• The trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the intent necessary to distinguish between separate offenses and a continuous scheme. This omission constituted fundamental error, as it deprived the jury of the opportunity to consider the Defendant's theory of the case.
• Counts five, six, and seven, which involved takings from a single day's deposit, should have been prosecuted as a single count under the single-larceny doctrine. The takings occurred when the Defendant withheld the money from the deposit, not when he initially received it.
• On remand, the State may elect to enter judgment on one count and retry the remaining counts. In any retrial, the jury must be properly instructed to determine whether the acts were motivated by separate impulses or a single intent.