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 arrested and indicted for embezzlement after being videotaped removing money from a register, placing it into a bag, entering a restroom with the bag, and exiting without it. The missing amount was $2,719.98 (para 2).

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY, Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge: The district court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment and her motion for reconsideration, but certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether the grand jury was sufficiently instructed on the essential elements of embezzlement.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the grand jury was not properly instructed on all elements of her embezzlement charge because the instructions failed to include definitions of "fraudulent intent" and "converted" (para 2).
• State: Asserted that the statutory elements set forth in Section 30-16-8(A) were sufficient for instructing the grand jury on a charge of embezzlement, without the need for additional definitional instructions (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's instructions to the grand jury were insufficient to advise the grand jury on the essential elements of an embezzlement charge in the absence of including the definitional instructions for the terms "fraudulent intent" and "converted" (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment and remanded for a dismissal of the indictment without prejudice (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring): The court held that the grand jury was not properly instructed on the essential elements of the embezzlement charge because the instructions did not include definitions for "fraudulent intent" and "converted," as required by UJI 14-1641. The court reasoned that UJI 14-8005 and its committee commentary mandate that definitional instructions included within the essential UJI elements instruction for a crime shall be given to the grand jury. The State's reliance on previous case law was found to be misplaced because those cases either predated the current version of UJI 14-8005 or did not involve the specific UJI applicable to the case at hand. The court concluded that the failure to provide the grand jury with the proper instruction from UJI 14-1641, including the definitional instructions for "fraudulent intent" and "conversion," constituted error (paras 4-12).