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 case involves two defendants, Kevin Gee and Richard Degurski, who were charged with separate crimes. Gee was charged with four counts of forgery for passing forged checks belonging to the Straders, whose checkbook had been stolen during a purse snatching. Degurski was charged with larceny and receiving stolen property for stealing and pawning a Snap-On air hammer belonging to his former coworker, Carl Hooten (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Rio Arriba County: Convicted Kevin Gee of four counts of forgery.
- District Court of Otero County: Convicted Richard Degurski of larceny over $250 and receiving stolen property.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Kevin Gee): Argued that the district court committed fundamental error by giving both general intent and specific intent jury instructions for the specific intent crime of forgery. Additionally, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for allowing prejudicial testimony about the purse snatching to be heard by the jury (paras 1, 20).
- Appellant (Richard Degurski): Contended that the district court committed fundamental error by failing to clarify that the general intent instruction applied only to the receiving stolen property charge and not to the specific intent crime of larceny (para 1).
- Respondent (State of New Mexico): Argued that the jury instructions in both cases substantially followed the applicable law and did not result in fundamental error. Further contended that Gee’s counsel was not ineffective (paras 1, 9).
Legal Issues
- Did the district courts commit fundamental error by giving both general intent and specific intent jury instructions in cases involving specific intent crimes?
- Was Kevin Gee’s trial counsel ineffective for allowing prejudicial testimony about the purse snatching to be heard by the jury?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of both Kevin Gee and Richard Degurski (para 26).
Reasons
Per Wechsler CJ (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Jury Instructions: The Court found no fundamental error in the jury instructions for either case. The instructions substantially followed the applicable statutes and required the jury to find specific intent for the crimes of forgery and larceny. The general intent instructions were not inconsistent with the specific intent instructions and did not mislead or confuse a reasonable juror when read as a whole (paras 9-15).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Gee): The Court held that Gee’s counsel was not ineffective. The initial objection to the prejudicial testimony was overruled, and the decision not to object further was a reasonable trial strategy. Additionally, the evidence against Gee was overwhelming, and there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent the alleged errors (paras 20-24).
Abandoned Arguments: The Court noted that both defendants abandoned their claims of insufficient evidence by failing to brief them (para 25).
The Court concluded that the jury instructions and trial proceedings were fair and affirmed the convictions in both cases (para 26).