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 drove to a mobile home in a trailer park and began shooting at the home, killing a dog owned by the occupants. The Defendant claimed he acted in response to harassment and threats from a gang. He testified that he shot at the home but did not enter it or know anyone was inside. Witnesses testified that the Defendant approached the home, shot the dog, and entered the house while shooting (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, January 16, 1997: The Defendant was convicted of injury to animals, escape from a police officer, and shooting at an occupied dwelling. He also pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and negligent use of a deadly weapon in a separate case. The cases were consolidated for sentencing (paras 6, 16).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the addition of the charge of shooting at an occupied dwelling after the close of testimony was prejudicial, violated his right to be informed of the charges, and deprived him of his rights to a preliminary hearing, grand jury, and proper indictment (paras 4, 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the trial court was permitted to amend the charges under Rule 5-204 NMRA 1998 to conform to the evidence and that the Defendant had sufficient notice of the new charge (paras 5, 9).

Legal Issues

• Was the amendment of the criminal information to include a new charge of shooting at an occupied dwelling prejudicial and a violation of the Defendant's rights? (paras 1, 7).

Disposition

• The conviction for shooting at an occupied dwelling was reversed, and the case was remanded for resentencing and entry of an amended judgment (para 16).
• The Defendant's other convictions were affirmed (para 16).

Reasons

Per A. Joseph Alarid J. (Thomas A. Donnelly and Michael D. Bustamante JJ. concurring):

The court found that the trial court erred in allowing the amendment of the criminal information to include a new charge of shooting at an occupied dwelling after the close of testimony. Rule 5-204(C) does not permit the addition of an entirely new charge at that stage, as it constitutes an "amended information" rather than an "amendment to an information" (paras 9-12).

The Defendant was prejudiced by the lack of notice of the new charge, as he had no opportunity to prepare a defense against it. The court distinguished this case from others where amendments were upheld, noting that the Defendant did not request the new charge and had explicitly objected to it (paras 13-15).

The court concluded that the lack of adequate notice violated the Defendant's rights, warranting the reversal of the conviction for shooting at an occupied dwelling. The remaining convictions were affirmed, and the case was remanded for resentencing (paras 16-17).