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

• On August 4, 2021, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) placed a "bait car" in a motel parking lot in Albuquerque to monitor and track the vehicle for unlawful taking. The vehicle was equipped with cameras and a GPS system. An individual named Matthew Jaramillo was observed starting the vehicle with an unidentified object and driving it a short distance within the parking lot before exiting. Subsequently, the Defendant entered the bait car and drove it away from the motel parking lot. The Defendant was later apprehended by the police (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. He contended that the term "take" in the statute implies that only the person who initially takes the motor vehicle can be guilty of unlawful taking, suggesting that he could only be guilty of receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle, not the initial unlawful taking (para 5).
• Appellee: The State argued that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant unlawfully took the motor vehicle by depriving the owner of their right to immediate possession, thereby supporting the conviction (paras 6-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for unlawful taking of a motor vehicle.
• Whether the term "take" in the statute implies that only the initial taker of a motor vehicle can be guilty of unlawful taking.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for unlawful taking of a motor vehicle (para 10).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, with Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge, and Zachary A. Ives, Judge, concurring, provided the reasoning for the Court's decision. The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Defendant unlawfully took the motor vehicle by depriving the owner of their right to immediate possession. It rejected the Defendant's argument that only the initial taker of the vehicle could be guilty of unlawful taking, clarifying that the statute does not exclude the possibility of successive unlawful takers. The Court's interpretation of the term "take" was based on its plain meaning, which encompasses obtaining control of a vehicle by any means without the owner's consent. The Court also dismissed the Defendant's assertion that he could only be guilty as an accessory, affirming that the evidence supported a direct commission of the crime (paras 5-9).