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 accused of taking a sport-styled motorcycle and a remote control car from a store without permission. The Defendant claimed he was test-driving the motorcycle and was unaware of how the remote control car ended up in his truck. The store owner identified the items as belonging to the store and called security, leading to the Defendant's arrest. The Defendant had consumed alcohol but did not appear intoxicated to the point of impairment (paras 1, 4-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, San Juan County: The Defendant was convicted of criminal trespassing and larceny over $500 but not more than $2500.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in refusing jury instructions on mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication. Additionally, claimed the evidence was insufficient to support the larceny conviction (paras 1, 7, 22).
- Appellee (State): Contended that the jury instructions were unnecessary as the intent element was adequately covered, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction (paras 7, 22).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant entitled to a jury instruction on mistake of fact?
- Was the Defendant entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for larceny over $500?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for larceny over $500 (para 23).
Reasons
Per Robles J. (Fry CJ. and Vigil J. concurring):
Mistake of Fact Instruction:
The Court held that the evidence did not support the Defendant’s claim that he reasonably believed he could test-drive the motorcycle without the store’s knowledge or permission. Testimony from the Defendant’s family indicated that prior test drives were conducted with the store’s consent and involvement. Additionally, the jury instructions already addressed the intent element, making a separate mistake of fact instruction unnecessary (paras 8-14).
Voluntary Intoxication Instruction:
The Court found no evidence that the Defendant was intoxicated to a degree that would negate his ability to form the specific intent required for larceny. The officer’s testimony only noted an odor of alcohol, and no other evidence suggested significant impairment. Thus, the instruction was properly denied (paras 15-18).
Sufficiency of Evidence:
The Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the larceny conviction. The store owner testified that the items were taken without permission and had a combined value exceeding $500. The Defendant’s argument that the property was never out of the owner’s control was rejected, as the act of taking the items constituted larceny regardless of the Defendant’s failure to escape (paras 19-22).