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 involved in a police sting operation where an undercover officer gave him $250 to procure cocaine. The Defendant failed to deliver the cocaine and did not return the money, despite repeated interactions with the officer where he claimed he had connections to obtain the drug. The Defendant was subsequently charged with embezzlement and attempted trafficking of cocaine (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: The Defendant was convicted of embezzlement and attempted trafficking of cocaine.
- New Mexico Court of Appeals: Certified the appeal to the Supreme Court of New Mexico to address whether the trial court erred in not giving a fraudulent intent instruction for the embezzlement charge.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury instruction for embezzlement was deficient as it omitted the statutory element of fraudulent intent, which could criminalize non-criminal behavior. The Defendant also contended that his convictions for both embezzlement and attempted trafficking violated double jeopardy and that there was insufficient evidence to support the attempted trafficking conviction (paras 8-9, 19, 33-34).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the jury instruction was sufficient and consistent with the uniform jury instructions. The State argued that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue by not objecting or offering a correct instruction and that the omission did not constitute fundamental error. The State also asserted that substantial evidence supported the attempted trafficking conviction and that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy (paras 9, 19, 33-34).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err by failing to include a fraudulent intent instruction for the embezzlement charge?
- Did the convictions for both embezzlement and attempted trafficking of cocaine violate double jeopardy?
- Was there substantial evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for attempted trafficking of cocaine?
Disposition
- The conviction for attempted trafficking of cocaine was affirmed (para 32).
- The conviction for embezzlement was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on that charge (para 18).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Ransom C.J. and Franchini J. concurring):
Fraudulent Intent in Embezzlement: The Court held that fraudulent intent is an essential element of embezzlement under the statute. The jury instruction was deficient as it failed to include this element, which could lead to criminalizing non-criminal behavior. The omission constituted fundamental error, necessitating reversal of the embezzlement conviction and a remand for a new trial (paras 10-18).
Double Jeopardy: The Court determined that the conduct underlying the embezzlement and attempted trafficking charges was not unitary because the intents required for each offense were logically incompatible. Thus, the convictions did not violate double jeopardy (paras 33-37).
Substantial Evidence for Attempted Trafficking: The Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for attempted trafficking. The Defendant's actions, including negotiating the drug deal, accepting money, and making attempts to procure cocaine, constituted overt acts in furtherance of the crime and demonstrated the requisite intent (paras 19-32).