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 involved in a drug transaction where a law enforcement officer arranged to purchase methamphetamine from him at a specified location. During this transaction, the Defendant negotiated the price and accepted money from the officer in exchange for the methamphetamine. Another individual, a woman, was also present during the transaction, participating by weighing the substance and approving the negotiated price (para 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John Dean Jr., District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for trafficking a controlled substance, specifically questioning the sufficiency of evidence to prove he "caused the transfer" of methamphetamine as he never physically touched the substance and highlighted the involvement of another individual in the transaction (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Presented evidence of the Defendant's involvement in the drug transaction, including his negotiation of the price and acceptance of money in exchange for methamphetamine, to support the conviction (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for trafficking a controlled substance, considering he did not physically touch the methamphetamine and another individual was involved in the transaction (para 2-3).

Disposition

• The conviction for trafficking a controlled substance was affirmed (para 4).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Chief Judge, and JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge, concurring):
  The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence, particularly his claim that he did not "cause the transfer" of methamphetamine due to not physically touching the substance and the involvement of another individual in the transaction. The Court found that the Defendant's facilitation of the transaction, including negotiating the price and accepting the money in exchange for the methamphetamine, was sufficient to establish his role in causing the transfer of the substance. This decision was supported by precedent indicating that physical possession of the substance is not necessary for a conviction in drug trafficking cases, as facilitation and participation in the transaction are adequate (para 2-4).