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 larceny, impersonating a peace officer, and resisting, evading, or obstructing a peace officer after stealing two car batteries from an AutoZone in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Defendant was wearing a black baseball cap with a sheriff’s badge and a badge around his neck with the words "East Mountain Protectors" when he committed the theft (paras 1, 4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of larceny, impersonating a peace officer, and resisting, evading, or obstructing a peace officer.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions for impersonating a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing a peace officer (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for impersonating a peace officer?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing a peace officer?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for impersonating a peace officer and resisting, evading, or obstructing a peace officer (para 16).
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Medina C.J. and Yohalem J. concurring):
-
Impersonating a Peace Officer: The Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Defendant admitted to pretending to be a peace officer, and the evidence showed he wore a sheriff’s badge and a badge with the words "East Mountain Protectors" (paras 4-5). The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that intent to deceive required fraudulent intent, noting that the statute's purpose is to protect the public from being deceived into believing someone is a peace officer (paras 5-7).
-
Resisting, Evading, or Obstructing a Peace Officer: The Court found sufficient evidence to support this conviction as well. Deputy Sandoval had reasonable suspicion to detain the Defendant based on the description of the vehicle involved in the theft. The Defendant's act of walking into his house constituted evading, as it was an affirmative act to avoid capture (paras 10-14). The jury could reasonably infer that the Defendant knew Deputy Sandoval was attempting to apprehend him, given the circumstances (para 14).