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 given a prescription for 20 Vicodin by a doctor. When the prescription was submitted to a pharmacist, it appeared to have been altered to prescribe 120 Vicodin. The pharmacist recognized the Defendant and reported the alteration. Upon arrest, the Defendant’s statement was recorded by an agent.
Procedural History
- District Court, Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of acquiring or attempting to acquire a controlled substance by misrepresentation.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the identification process was flawed, the recorded statement contained prejudicial remarks, and the testimony of the prescribing doctor was unreliable due to missing documents. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the evidence, including the pharmacist’s recognition of the Defendant and the recorded statement, was sufficient to support the conviction. The State also argued that the Defendant failed to preserve certain arguments for appeal and that no prejudice resulted from the alleged errors.
Legal Issues
- Was the identification of the Defendant sufficient to support the conviction?
- Did the district court err in allowing the recorded statement to be played for the jury?
- Did the failure to disclose documents used by the prescribing doctor to refresh her memory prejudice the Defendant?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the conviction?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction.
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Castillo and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
-
Identification of the Defendant: The Court held that the pharmacist’s recognition of the Defendant was sufficient to allow the jury to infer that the Defendant was the person who attempted to fill the altered prescription. The Court also found no prejudice in allowing the agent who recorded the Defendant’s statement to remain in the courtroom, as the pharmacist’s testimony independently identified the Defendant.
-
Recorded Statement: The Court determined that the agent’s remark in the recorded statement, “I’ve never known anyone to be bitten by a black widow spider,” was not a comment on the Defendant’s credibility. The remark was deemed neutral and did not suggest disbelief in the Defendant’s explanation for obtaining the prescription. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recording.
-
Doctor’s Testimony and Missing Documents: The Court found no evidence that the State possessed the documents used by the doctor to refresh her memory. Additionally, the Defendant failed to request the documents during trial or demonstrate prejudice from their absence. The Court rejected the argument that the doctor’s use of notes to refresh her memory constituted a scientific principle requiring additional scrutiny.
-
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court concluded that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support the conviction. The jury was entitled to rely on the pharmacist’s testimony, the recorded statement, and the altered prescription to find the Defendant guilty.