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 convicted of crimes related to the unauthorized use of a debit card belonging to the victim. The Defendant claimed he had permission to use the card as advance payment for handyman services, while the victim denied authorizing such use. The transactions in question occurred at Big Lots and McCoy’s Lumber Yard.
Procedural History
- District Court, Lea County, presided by Don Maddox, District Judge: The Defendant was convicted of criminal penalty and attempt to commit criminal penalty related to the unauthorized use of the victim’s debit card.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in admitting a videotaped interview into evidence and allowing it to be partially played for the jury. The Defendant also contended that the court should have granted a motion for a directed verdict, asserting that he had the victim’s permission to use the debit card.
- Appellee (State): Maintained that the videotape was properly admitted and that the Defendant’s objections were not preserved for appeal. The State also argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, including the victim’s denial of authorizing the Defendant to use the debit card.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in admitting the videotaped interview of the Defendant into evidence and allowing it to be partially played for the jury?
- Was there sufficient evidence to deny the Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Robles JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant’s objections to the videotaped interview were not properly preserved for appeal. Although the Defendant had successfully limited the testimony of the victim and the police officer through a motion in limine, this motion did not extend to the contents of the videotape. Defense counsel did not object to the admission of the videotape when it was entered into evidence, nor did they request redaction of portions of the videotape or a curative instruction after it was partially played. As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the videotape.
Regarding the motion for a directed verdict, the Court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s decision. The victim denied authorizing the Defendant to use her debit card, and the jury was entitled to resolve conflicts in the evidence in favor of the State. The Court emphasized that contrary evidence supporting acquittal does not provide grounds for reversal, as the jury is free to reject the Defendant’s version of events.
The Court concluded that the district court did not err in its rulings and affirmed the convictions.