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 aggravated stalking after allegedly violating a protection order by following and threatening the Victim while she was driving. The Victim identified the Defendant as the driver of a truck that tailgated her, honked, and made threatening gestures. The Defendant disputed being the driver and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, San Juan County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated stalking following a jury trial (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the driver of the truck and that the events constituted a single incident, not a pattern of conduct. He also contended that the jury instructions allowed for a non-unanimous verdict and challenged the habitual offender enhancement and the denial of his right to a speedy trial (paras 5-11).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the jury instructions were proper, and the habitual offender enhancement was justified. The Plaintiff also argued that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated stalking?
- Did the jury instructions improperly allow for a non-unanimous verdict?
- Was the habitual offender enhancement properly applied?
- Was the Defendant's right to a speedy trial violated?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction and the application of the habitual offender enhancement (para 15).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Medina C.J. and Attrep J. concurring):
The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the Defendant was the driver of the truck and that his actions constituted a pattern of conduct necessary for aggravated stalking. The Court held that the jury instructions did not require unanimity on the specific theory of conduct, only on the verdict itself. Regarding the habitual offender enhancement, the Court noted that the Defendant failed to demonstrate error in the district court's reliance on the documentation provided. Finally, the Court concluded that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, as he failed to show particularized prejudice from the delay (paras 2-14).