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

• A fugitive was arrested in Defendant's home, leading to the execution of a search warrant. During the arrest process, police smelled marijuana and, after being denied consent to search by the homeowners, obtained a search warrant. The search yielded methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia in the northeast bedroom, where Defendant and another resident slept. Defendant was convicted for possession of these items but appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession and challenging the search's legality based on New Mexico's medical marijuana regulatory scheme (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and contended there was insufficient evidence of constructive possession to support the convictions (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the Defendant failed to preserve the argument regarding the impact of New Mexico’s medical marijuana regulatory scheme on the standard for constitutional probable cause and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions (paras 5-6, 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence based on the argument that New Mexico's medical marijuana regulatory scheme has altered the standard for constitutional probable cause (para 5).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession to support the convictions for possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia (para 9).

Disposition

• The appeal resulted in the reversal of the Defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate that conviction and to resentence the Defendant accordingly. The convictions for possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were affirmed (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Briana H. Zamora, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Megan P. Duffy, concluded that the Defendant did not preserve the argument regarding the impact of New Mexico’s medical marijuana regulatory scheme on the standard for constitutional probable cause, as it was not raised in the lower court. Therefore, this argument was not considered on appeal (paras 5-8). Regarding the sufficiency of evidence for the convictions, the Court found that there was substantial evidence linking the Defendant to the methamphetamine and paraphernalia based on their location in the northeast bedroom, which was under his and another resident's control. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction for possession of marijuana, as it was located in a part of the room not demonstrated to be under the Defendant's control (paras 9-14).