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

• Three police officers arrested Defendant Latisha Shipley at Eastern New Mexico University (ENMU) for a probation violation related to DWI. During the arrest, Shipley admitted to possessing methamphetamine and handed over two small bags containing the drug, totaling 1.7 grams. She was subsequently charged and convicted of trafficking methamphetamine based on the possession with intent to distribute (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court failed in its gatekeeping function by improperly qualifying Officer Aguilar as an expert witness without foundational testimony establishing the reliability of his opinion. Contended that the State's failure to notify the defense of its intent to call the officer as an expert was fundamentally unfair. Claimed the State did not establish the corpus delicti of intent to distribute by sufficient independent evidence and that there was insufficient evidence of intent to transfer the drugs in her possession (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in qualifying Officer Aguilar as an expert witness without foundational testimony establishing the reliability of his opinion.
• Whether the State's failure to notify the defense of its intent to call the officer as an expert was fundamentally unfair.
• Whether the State failed to establish the corpus delicti of intent to distribute by sufficient independent evidence.
• Whether there was insufficient evidence that Defendant intended to transfer the drugs in her possession (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction for trafficking methamphetamine and remanded for a new trial, agreeing that the district court erred in permitting Officer Aguilar to testify as an expert without proper foundation and that this error was not harmless. The court did not consider the argument concerning notification of intent to call the officer as an expert due to the decision on the expert testimony issue. The court disagreed with Defendant's claims regarding the corpus delicti rule and sufficiency of evidence regarding intent to distribute (paras 1, 21).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the district court abused its discretion by allowing Officer Aguilar to offer an expert opinion on whether Defendant was a dealer based on the amount of methamphetamine found on her person without establishing the reliability of his opinion through his training, experience, or education. This error was deemed not harmless as it likely influenced the jury's verdict. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for trafficking methamphetamine, including Defendant's admission and text messages indicating drug deals, thus the corpus delicti rule and the sufficiency of evidence regarding intent to distribute were satisfied. However, due to the improper admission of expert testimony, the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial (paras 5-22).