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 larceny over $2,500 after being found in possession of a bag containing money that was allegedly stolen from a safe. The Defendant attempted to leave the premises with the bag, evade police involvement, and flee the store, which the jury interpreted as evidence of intent to permanently deprive the owner of the money.
Procedural History
- District Court, Eddy County: The Defendant was convicted of larceny over $2,500 following a jury trial.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that she was denied a fair trial due to the district court’s refusal to excuse two jurors for cause, forcing her to use peremptory challenges, and that biased jurors served on the jury. Additionally, she challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, asserting that the bag of money was not conclusively identified and that the value of its contents was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
- State-Appellee: Contended that the jurors in question did not have relationships with the victims that required excusal for cause and that the Defendant failed to use all her peremptory challenges. The State also argued that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict, including the Defendant’s possession of the bag and her actions indicating intent to steal.
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant denied a fair trial due to the district court’s refusal to excuse two jurors for cause?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for larceny over $2,500?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Castillo and Robles JJ. concurring):
Jury Selection: The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse the two jurors for cause. The relationships between the jurors and the victims were not substantial enough to establish partiality under the applicable case law. Additionally, the Defendant did not use all her peremptory challenges, which diminished her ability to claim prejudice or error in jury selection.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court held that sufficient evidence supported the conviction. The jury could reasonably infer from the Defendant’s possession of the bag, her attempts to flee, and her behavior that she intended to permanently deprive the owner of the money. The Court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts contrary to the jury’s verdict, as long as substantial evidence supports the decision.
Conclusion: The Court concluded that the Defendant was not denied a fair trial and that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The judgment and sentence were affirmed.