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, along with accomplices, stole horses from within Navajo tribal lands and transported them to Gallup, New Mexico, intending to sell them. The Defendant was apprehended outside tribal boundaries while in possession of the stolen horses (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of McKinley County: The Defendant was convicted of multiple charges, including larceny of livestock, conspiracy to commit a felony, and transporting stolen livestock. A plea agreement was initially entered but later set aside due to an illegal banishment provision. The Defendant was retried and convicted on all counts (paras 2, 16).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that New Mexico lacked jurisdiction to prosecute crimes initiated within Indian country and that convictions for both larceny of livestock and transporting stolen livestock violated double jeopardy protections. Additional arguments included claims of constitutional violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and procedural errors (paras 1, 2, 3, 8).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the State had jurisdiction over crimes continuing into state territory and that the convictions were valid under New Mexico law. The State also argued that the Defendant's other claims lacked merit (paras 3, 5, 7).
Legal Issues
- Did New Mexico have jurisdiction to prosecute the Defendant for crimes initiated within Indian country but continuing into state territory? (para 1)
- Did convicting the Defendant for both larceny of livestock and transporting stolen livestock violate the prohibition against double jeopardy? (para 1)
Disposition
- The Court affirmed the State's jurisdiction to prosecute the Defendant for larceny and conspiracy (para 16).
- The Court reversed the Defendant's conviction for transporting stolen livestock on double jeopardy grounds and remanded the case to set aside the judgment and sentence for that conviction (para 16).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Wechsler and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
Jurisdiction: The Court held that New Mexico had jurisdiction to prosecute the Defendant because the crimes were of a continuing nature and extended beyond Indian country into state territory. Precedent established that larceny is a continuing crime, and the State could prosecute offenses committed within its boundaries, even if initiated elsewhere (paras 3-7).
Double Jeopardy: Applying the two-part test from Swafford v. State, the Court found that the conduct underlying the larceny and transporting charges was unitary, as both were based on the same act of transporting stolen horses. Under the Blockburger test, the elements of transporting stolen livestock were subsumed within the larceny statute when the subject was livestock. Thus, the legislature did not intend multiple punishments for the same conduct, and the dual convictions violated double jeopardy protections (paras 8-15).
Other Issues: The Court summarily addressed and dismissed the Defendant's remaining claims in a separate memorandum opinion, finding them without merit (para 1).