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, an employee in the accounting department of a New Mexico company, was accused of embezzling two pre-signed checks stored in a locked filing cabinet. The checks were allegedly filled out and cashed in Texas with the help of accomplices. The Defendant's job responsibilities included handling payroll and financial transactions but did not involve authority over pre-signed checks, which were entrusted to another employee (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of embezzlement over $2,500. The court denied the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict, finding sufficient evidence of entrustment and jurisdiction in New Mexico (paras 6-7).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence of entrustment, as she was not in lawful possession of the pre-signed checks. She also contended that the alleged crime occurred in Texas, not New Mexico, and thus was outside New Mexico's jurisdiction (paras 1, 6, 8).
- State-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant's job responsibilities, including access to the locked filing cabinet and involvement in financial transactions, established entrustment. The State also argued that sufficient actions related to the crime occurred in New Mexico to establish jurisdiction (paras 6, 8).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant was entrusted with the pre-signed checks, an essential element of embezzlement?
- Did New Mexico have jurisdiction to prosecute the alleged crime?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction and remanded the case for entry of a judgment of acquittal on the embezzlement charges (para 17).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Wechsler and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the State failed to prove the element of entrustment, which requires that the Defendant was in lawful possession of the property before converting it. The evidence showed that the pre-signed checks were entrusted to another employee, not the Defendant. The Defendant's access to the filing cabinet where the checks were stored did not amount to lawful possession or control over the checks. The Court distinguished this case from precedents where entrustment was established, emphasizing that mere access to property is insufficient for embezzlement (paras 9-16).
Since the entrustment issue was dispositive, the Court did not address the jurisdictional argument (para 16).