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 charged with two counts of perjury based on statements made under oath during a preliminary hearing related to a drive-by shooting incident on July 13, 2014. The State's case against the Defendant included his unsworn police interview, the transcript of his preliminary hearing testimony, and testimony from law enforcement officials. The Defendant did not present any evidence or testimony in his defense (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant made false statements under oath during a preliminary hearing, which constituted perjury. The State submitted the Defendant's unsworn police interview, the transcript of the preliminary hearing testimony, and law enforcement testimony as evidence (para 2).
• Defendant-Appellant (Randy Romero): Contended that there was insufficient evidence to establish the falsity of his sworn statements and that being convicted for two counts of perjury for a single course of conduct subjected him to double jeopardy (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was insufficient evidence to establish the falsity of the Defendant's sworn statements.
• Whether the conviction for two counts of perjury for a single course of conduct subjected the Defendant to double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The court reversed the Defendant's conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence to establish the falsity of his sworn statements. The court did not reach the double jeopardy issue due to the reversal on sufficiency grounds (para 17-18).

Reasons

• VANZI, Judge, with J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge Pro Tempore concurring:
  The court found that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the falsity of the Defendant's sworn statements. The court highlighted that the State's reliance on the Defendant's prior inconsistent unsworn statements was insufficient to prove perjury. The court emphasized the strict requirements of proof in perjury cases, noting that the State must provide evidence that is "strong, clear, convincing, and direct" to prove the falsity of a statement under oath. The court also noted procedural issues, such as the lack of specificity in the indictment and at trial regarding the allegedly perjurious statements. The court concluded that the State merely showed a conflict with statements the Defendant made that were not under oath, which was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the under-oath statement was false. As a result, the presumption that the Defendant spoke truthfully under oath must prevail, and the State was not entitled to a conviction of perjury (paras 3-16).