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 and a partner were renovating a property in Taos, New Mexico, for use as a bed-and-breakfast. They contracted with North Academy Interiors for carpeting, linoleum, and drapery installation. The Defendant issued multiple checks to North Academy Interiors, including a final check for $9,979.60, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The conviction was based on this final check, which covered outstanding balances and additional charges. North Academy Interiors did not receive payment for the dishonored check (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Taos County: The Defendant was convicted of fraud by worthless check and ordered to make full restitution to North Academy Interiors.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the check was issued for a pre-existing debt, which does not violate the Worthless Check Act; that the victim knew or had reason to believe the Defendant lacked sufficient funds; that the trial court erred in excluding evidence about North Academy Interiors' lack of a contractor's license; and that the restitution order was improper as it included amounts for unlicensed work (paras 1, 6, 10, 13, 16-18).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the check was part of a contemporaneous transaction and thus violated the Worthless Check Act; that the victim relied on the Defendant's assurances of sufficient funds; and that the trial court properly excluded evidence about licensing as irrelevant to the Defendant's intent (paras 6, 11, 13-15).
Legal Issues
- Was the check issued for a pre-existing debt, thereby exempting it from the Worthless Check Act?
- Did the victim have knowledge or reason to believe the Defendant lacked sufficient funds, precluding liability under the Worthless Check Act?
- Did the trial court err in excluding evidence about the victim's lack of a contractor's license?
- Was the restitution order improper as it included amounts for unlicensed work?
Disposition
- The conviction for fraud by worthless check was affirmed.
- The restitution order was reversed and remanded for redetermination of the amount owed, excluding amounts for unlicensed work (paras 20-21).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Donnelly and Minzner JJ. concurring):
Pre-existing Debt Rule: The court held that the Worthless Check Act applies to checks issued as part of a contemporaneous transaction, even if goods or services were delivered before the check was issued. The Defendant's reliance on precedent was misplaced, as the facts demonstrated a cash transaction rather than a credit arrangement (paras 6-9).
Knowledge of Insufficient Funds: The court found sufficient evidence that the victim relied on the Defendant's assurances that funds would be available. The jury resolved conflicting evidence on this issue against the Defendant, and the court upheld the verdict (paras 10-12).
Exclusion of Licensing Evidence: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence about the victim's lack of a contractor's license. The evidence was deemed minimally probative and likely to confuse the jury, as it was unrelated to the Defendant's intent when issuing the check (paras 13-15).
Restitution Order: The court agreed that restitution should be limited to amounts recoverable in a civil action. Since unlicensed contractors cannot recover payment for unlicensed work, the restitution order was reversed and remanded for recalculation, excluding amounts for work requiring a license (paras 16-19).