July 7, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Scott T. Weaver, No. A-1-CA-38358

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/7/2020 11:14 AM

LA he of
Mark Reynalts

v. No. A-1-CA-38358

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SCOTT WEAVER,
Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY
James L. Sanchez, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HANISEE, Chief Judge.

4} Defendant appeals his conviction. We issued a notice of proposed summary

disposition proposing to affirm, and Defendant has responded with a timely

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

memorandum in opposition. We remain unpersuaded that our initial proposed
summary disposition was incorrect, and we therefore affirm.

2} Defendant continues to argue that the State presented insufficient evidence to
convict him of the offense. [MIO 1] We have already set out the relevant evidence
and testimony at trial in the notice of proposed summary disposition, and Defendant
does not contest the evidence as stated in the proposed notice. [MIO 1] We therefore
will avoid unnecessary repetition, and refer only to the facts relevant to our analysis.
33} The test for sufficiency of the evidence “1s whether substantial evidence of
either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” State v.
Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031, § 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314. In reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
state, resolving all conflicts therein and indulging all permissible inferences therefrom
in favor of the verdict.” Jd. “Where .. . a jury verdict in a criminal case is supported
by substantial evidence, the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal.” Jd.

44; Defendant continues to argue that the evidence was insufficient because it was
based on only the eyewitness testimony of the victim, and all other witness testimony

was hearsay. [MIO 1] However, non-hearsay evidence corroborating the victim’s

10
11

12

15
16

version of events was not required, and the jury could properly convict Defendant

based on the testimony of the victim alone. See State v. Hunter, 1933-NMSC-069,

4] 6, 37 N.M. 382, 24 P.2d 251 (“[T]he testimony of a single witness may legally

suffice as evidence upon which the jury may found a verdict of guilt.”); State v. Soliz,

1969-NMCA-043, 4 8, 80 N.M. 297, 454 P.2d 779 (stating that the testimony of a

single witness is sufficient for a conviction).

{5} For these reasons and those set out in our notice of proposed summary

disposition, we affirm Defendant’s conviction.

6} ITISSO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

BREXNA HL. ZAM pA. Judge

J-MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge