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 friend visited a department store where both engaged in shoplifting. The Defendant concealed items in her baby stroller and admitted knowing her friend also placed additional items in the stroller without her consent. The Defendant left the store with all the items, claiming she was confused and unsure of her friend’s intentions but admitted knowledge of the items in the stroller.
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: The Defendant entered a conditional plea of no contest to shoplifting over $500, reserving the right to appeal the court’s evidentiary ruling and its refusal to allow lesser-included offense instructions.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that evidence distinguishing which items were taken by her versus her friend was critical to her defense and that the trial court’s exclusion of such evidence denied her the right to present a defense. She also contended that she was entitled to lesser-included offense instructions for shoplifting under $250 and shoplifting between $250 and $500.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant was liable for the aggregate value of all items taken, as she knowingly participated in the shoplifting and attempted to leave the store with all the items. The Plaintiff argued that the trial court correctly excluded evidence and denied the lesser-included offense instructions.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence distinguishing which items were taken by the Defendant versus her friend.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s request for lesser-included offense instructions for shoplifting under $250 and shoplifting between $250 and $500.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Vigil and Garcia JJ. concurring):
-
The Court held that the trial court correctly excluded evidence distinguishing which items were taken by the Defendant versus her friend. Under New Mexico law, when individuals act together in shoplifting, they are jointly responsible for the aggregate value of the merchandise taken, regardless of who physically took which items. The Defendant admitted to shoplifting, knowing her friend also placed items in the stroller, and attempted to leave the store with all the items. Thus, the excluded evidence was irrelevant and did not support a valid defense.
-
Regarding the lesser-included offense instructions, the Court found that the Defendant’s argument relied on an incorrect legal theory. Since the Defendant admitted knowledge of all the items in the stroller and attempted to leave the store with them, she was liable for the total value of the items. There was no reasonable view of the evidence to support the lesser offenses as the highest degree of crime committed. The trial court’s refusal to provide the instructions was therefore proper.