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 was convicted for intimidation or threat of a witness and violation of an order of protection. The case involved an encounter with his ex-wife, which the Defendant orchestrated despite a governing protection order. The Defendant contended that he did not see his ex-wife's vehicle, did not know she was at the residence, was called to the residence, asked his ex-wife if she wanted him to leave, and did not threaten her. The State presented evidence suggesting otherwise.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Christina P. Argyres, District Judge: Conviction of the Defendant for intimidation or threat of a witness and violation of an order of protection.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, claiming he did not see his ex-wife's vehicle, did not know she was at the residence, was called to the residence, asked his ex-wife if she wanted him to leave, and did not threaten her.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Presented evidence to support the convictions, arguing that the Defendant had orchestrated the encounter with his ex-wife in knowing and intentional violation of the protection order and had threatened and intimidated his ex-wife.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for intimidation or threat of a witness and violation of an order of protection.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, convicting the Defendant for intimidation or threat of a witness and violation of an order of protection.

Reasons

• Per WECHSLER, J., with concurrence from GARCIA, J., and FRENCH, J.: The Court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving conflicts in favor of the verdict. The Court emphasized that it disregards evidence and inferences supporting a different result. It was noted that circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn by the jury can be sufficient to support a conviction. The Court found ample evidence for the jury to reasonably infer that the Defendant had orchestrated his encounter with his ex-wife in violation of the protection order and had threatened and intimidated her to prevent her from testifying against him. The Court stated that the jury is free to reject the Defendant’s version of the facts and find credibility in the victim’s testimony, and on appeal, the Court will not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts, or indulge in inferences inconsistent with the verdict.