AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 entered a store with his girlfriend, concealed two peanut brittle patties in his clothing, and attempted to leave without paying. When confronted by the store owner, the Defendant returned the items but tried to exit the store despite being told to stay. As employees blocked the exit, the Defendant kicked backward, missing an employee but cracking the store's glass door. He was restrained outside the store until police arrived (paras 6-7).

Procedural History

• Magistrate Court: The Defendant was convicted of criminal damage to property and shoplifting.
• District Court: On appeal, a trial de novo was held, and the jury found the Defendant guilty on both counts (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that (1) the State's failure to file a witness list prejudiced his ability to prepare for trial, (2) the admission of his prior larceny conviction was improper and more prejudicial than probative, (3) the motion for a directed verdict on the criminal damage charge should have been granted due to insufficient evidence of intent, and (4) the State's argument on transferred intent constituted fundamental error (paras 9, 18, 27, 36).
• Respondent (State): Contended that (1) the failure to file a new witness list was inadvertent and did not prejudice the Defendant, as the witnesses were known from the magistrate trial, (2) the prior larceny conviction was admissible under Rule 11-609(A)(2) NMRA and was properly balanced under Rule 11-403, (3) sufficient evidence supported the criminal damage charge as it required only general intent, and (4) the transferred intent argument did not result in fundamental error (paras 10-11, 19-20, 28-29, 37-38).

Legal Issues

• Did the district court err in refusing to provide a remedy for the State’s failure to file a witness list?
• Was the admission of the Defendant’s prior larceny conviction improper?
• Did the district court err in denying the Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on the criminal damage charge?
• Did the State’s argument on transferred intent constitute fundamental error?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision on all issues (para 45).

Reasons

Per Garcia J. (Fry CJ. and Castillo J. concurring):

Failure to File a Witness List: The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the trial to proceed without a new witness list. The Defendant had prior notice of the witnesses from the magistrate trial, and no prejudice was demonstrated. The Defendant had sufficient opportunity to prepare for cross-examination and investigate potential biases (paras 12-17).

Admission of Prior Larceny Conviction: The court held that the district court properly admitted the prior conviction under Rule 11-609(A)(2) NMRA. The record showed that the district court conducted the necessary balancing test under Rule 11-403, limiting the prejudicial impact by restricting the State to a single question about the conviction. The Defendant failed to show an abuse of discretion or improper application of the law (paras 21-26).

Directed Verdict on Criminal Damage: The court determined that criminal damage to property is a general intent crime, requiring only proof of the intentional act (kicking) and not specific intent to cause damage. The evidence, including witness testimony and the Defendant’s own admissions, was sufficient for a jury to find general intent. The motion for a directed verdict was properly denied (paras 30-35).

Transferred Intent Argument: While the State incorrectly invoked the theory of transferred intent, this did not amount to fundamental error. The crime required only general intent, which was sufficiently proven. The State’s argument imposed a higher burden on itself, and the Defendant’s right to a fair trial was not compromised (paras 39-44).