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 observed engaging in a shoplifting scheme at a Costco store. He was dropped off by a vehicle that remained nearby with its engine running. Inside the store, the Defendant placed two Sony Playstation 3 game bundles in a cart and moved toward the front door before pushing the cart to the rear of the store and exiting through an emergency exit to the waiting vehicle. The Defendant was accused of shoplifting and conspiracy to commit shoplifting.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of shoplifting and conspiracy to commit shoplifting.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that he was entitled to a jury instruction on an attempt to commit a felony, as there was evidence suggesting that neither the shoplifting nor the conspiracy was completed. Additionally, he contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, particularly disputing the element of possession, as he did not leave the store with the items.
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions and that the Defendant’s actions demonstrated both possession of the merchandise and an agreement with the driver of the vehicle to commit shoplifting.
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant entitled to a jury instruction on an attempt to commit a felony?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions for shoplifting and conspiracy to commit shoplifting?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for shoplifting and conspiracy to commit shoplifting.
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Bustamante and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on an attempt to commit a felony. For such an instruction to be warranted, there must be a reasonable view of the evidence supporting the lesser offense as the highest degree of crime committed. The evidence presented showed that the Defendant completed the elements of shoplifting and conspiracy, leaving no basis for an attempt instruction. The crime of shoplifting was complete when the Defendant took possession of the merchandise with the intent to take it without paying, and the conspiracy was established by the agreement between the Defendant and the driver of the vehicle.
Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support the convictions. The Defendant’s actions, including his coordination with the driver and his possession of the merchandise, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent and agreement to commit shoplifting. The jury was entitled to infer intent and agreement based on the Defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances.
The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument that possession required removing the items from the store, clarifying that possession occurs when an individual exercises control over an item in their presence. Requiring removal from the store would conflate shoplifting with larceny, which is a distinct offense.
For these reasons, the Court affirmed the convictions.