This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Law enforcement officers received a tip from a known informant about marijuana plants growing behind the Defendants' residence. Upon visiting the property, the officers observed vegetation they believed to be marijuana. They approached the residence and obtained consent from one Defendant to search the premises. The search revealed eight marijuana plants, which were seized and tested positive for marijuana. The Defendants were subsequently charged with trafficking and possession offenses (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Valencia County: Defendant Daniel Shaulis was convicted of trafficking marijuana by manufacture, and Defendant Tammy Shaulis-Powell was convicted of possession of marijuana in excess of eight ounces.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant Daniel Shaulis (Appellant): Argued that the growing of marijuana does not constitute trafficking by manufacture under the statutory definition and that his consent to the search was coerced, rendering it invalid (paras 8-10, 17-18).
- Defendant Tammy Shaulis-Powell (Appellant): Contended that she was prejudiced by being charged with trafficking by manufacture and that the search was invalid due to lack of Miranda warnings and coercion (paras 14-16, 20-21).
- State of New Mexico (Respondent): Asserted that the search was lawful as consent was voluntarily given and that the evidence supported the convictions. However, the State conceded that the trafficking by manufacture charge was not supported by the statutory definition (paras 11-13, 17).
Legal Issues
- Was the search of the Defendants' property lawful based on the consent provided?
- Does the growing of marijuana plants constitute trafficking by manufacture under the statutory definition?
- Was Defendant Tammy Shaulis-Powell prejudiced by being charged with trafficking by manufacture?
Disposition
- The conviction of Defendant Daniel Shaulis for trafficking by manufacture was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings (para 20).
- The conviction of Defendant Tammy Shaulis-Powell for possession of marijuana in excess of eight ounces was affirmed (para 22).
Reasons
Per Pickard CJ (Hartz and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Validity of Consent: The Court held that Daniel's consent to the search was voluntary and not the result of coercion or duress. The officers' statements about obtaining a warrant and the consequences of consent were lawful and did not invalidate the consent. The officers' failure to provide Miranda warnings before the search did not render the consent invalid, as the Defendants were not in custody at the time (paras 7-16).
Trafficking by Manufacture: The Court determined that the statutory definition of "manufacture" under the Controlled Substances Act does not include the mere growing of marijuana plants. The evidence did not support the trafficking by manufacture charge against Daniel, leading to the reversal of his conviction (paras 17-20).
Prejudice to Tammy Shaulis-Powell: The Court found no prejudice to Tammy from being charged with trafficking by manufacture, as the jury ultimately convicted her of the lesser offense of possession. The evidence supported her conviction for possession of marijuana in excess of eight ounces (paras 20-21).