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 case involves the Defendant's alleged involvement in violent crimes as an accessory. The issues include the sufficiency of evidence under the "natural and probable consequence" test, potential double jeopardy in sentencing for five offenses, and the imposition of a firearm enhancement for a conspiracy conviction.
Procedural History
- New Mexico Court of Appeals, August 30, 1996: The Court of Appeals applied the "natural and probable consequence" test to assess accessory liability and ruled on the Defendant's sentencing and firearm enhancement.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the "natural and probable consequence" test for accessory liability, that sentencing for five offenses constituted double jeopardy, and that the firearm enhancement for the conspiracy conviction was improper. (N/A)
- Plaintiff-Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the Court of Appeals err in applying the "natural and probable consequence" test to determine the sufficiency of evidence for accessory liability in violent crimes?
- Was the Defendant subjected to double jeopardy by being sentenced for five offenses?
- Was it an error to impose a firearm enhancement for the conspiracy conviction?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to review the issues raised. (headnotes)
Reasons
The Court ordered an expedited review of the case, requiring the parties to consolidate and update their briefs from the Court of Appeals and address the opinion issued on August 30, 1996. The matter was scheduled for submission on the December 1996 calendar, to be decided based on the briefs only. (headnotes)