State v. Barreras
Decision Date | 06 April 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 25,927.,25,927. |
Citation | 2007 NMCA 067,159 P.3d 1138 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan BARRERAS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Katherine Zinn, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.
John Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Theodosia Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.
{1} Defendant appeals his conviction for criminal damage to property, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-15-1 (1963). Defendant argues that the district court erroneously denied his motion for a directed verdict, because there was insufficient evidence to support the amount-of-damage element of the offense. We hold that the State presented substantial evidence to support the elements of the charge as defined by the statute and uniform jury instruction. Therefore, we affirm.
{2} Defendant was alleged to have used a tire iron on December 21, 2003, to damage his boss's 2002 Cadillac Escalade. The damage included breaking the passenger side windows, the rear window, the front windshield, and the passenger side rear-view mirror, as well as denting the roof and the passenger side door. Defendant was charged with criminal damage to property, pursuant to Section 30-15-1. At trial, the State presented evidence that the actual cost to repair the damage was $5,100. There was also evidence that the vehicle was one year old and in good condition at the time of the damage. There was no other evidence concerning the amount of damage to the vehicle. Defendant moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. The charge went to the jury, but a mistrial was declared and the case was set for re-trial. Defendant pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal the district court's decision that there was sufficient evidence to submit the charge to the jury. Defendant reserved the right to appeal the denial of his directed verdict motion.
{3} Defendant does not dispute the evidence to support the cost of repair, but argues that under the statute and applicable jury instruction, evidence of the cost of repair alone was insufficient to support a conviction for criminal damage to property. Therefore, the issue is whether the State presented substantial evidence to support the charge. See State v. Dominguez, 115 N.M. 445, 455, 853 P.2d 147, 157 (Ct.App.1993) (). Because this is an issue that arose on Defendant's directed verdict motion, we must analyze the evidence in light of the jury instructions submitted at trial. See State v. Schackow, 2006-NMCA-123, ¶ 8, 140 N.M. 506, 143 P.3d 745 . We review the district court's application of the law to the facts de novo. See State v. Attaway, 117 N.M. 141, 144-45, 870 P.2d 103, 106-07 (1994) (, )modified on other grounds by State v. Lopez, 2005-NMSC-018, 138 N.M. 9, 116 P.3d 80.
{4} To convict Defendant of criminal damage to property as a fourth degree felony, the jury was instructed that it had to find, in part, that the amount of damage was more than $1000. Section 30-15-1; UJI 14-1501 NMRA. The jury was also instructed in accordance with UJI 14-1510 NMRA, which defines "[a]mount of damage" as
the difference between the price at which the property could ordinarily be bought or sold prior to the damage and the price at which the property could be bought or sold after the damage. If the cost of repair of the damaged property exceeds the replacement cost of the property, the value of the damaged property is the replacement cost.
{5} We interpret the jury instruction definition as providing two methods of determining the amount of damage. The first way is what the parties refer to as the "market value" or "diminution in value," as provided in the first sentence of the jury instruction. It is defined as the difference between the price for which the property could be bought or sold before the damage and the price after the damage. We refer to this method as the before and after value.
{6} The second method is the cost of repair. The second sentence of the jury instruction provides that if the cost of repair is more than the replacement cost, the value or amount of damage is the replacement cost. Logically, the inverse is true — if the cost of repair does not exceed the replacement cost of the property, then the cost of repair is the value used to determine the amount of damage.
{7} We are supported in this view of the applicable jury instruction by several lines of authority—New Mexico criminal cases, New Mexico civil authority, and out-of-state authority. Our criminal cases, albeit decided prior to the adoption of UJI 14-1510, have indicated without discussion that cost of repair evidence in the form of repair estimates is sufficient to establish the amount of damage to property. See State v. Haar, 110 N.M. 517, 520, 797 P.2d 306, 309 (Ct.App. 1990). In the civil arena, our uniform jury instructions provide two instructions permitting the jury, when "determining property damage," to either "award the reasonable expense of necessary repairs to the property which was damaged" or "award the difference between the fair market value of the damaged personal property immediately before the occurrence and its fair market value immediately after the occurrence." UJI 13-1813 NMRA, UJI 13-1814 NMRA. Similarly, cost of repair has been recognized by other jurisdictions as a measure of damage to property in criminal cases alternative to before and after value. See, e.g., Willett v. State, 826 P.2d 1142, 1144-45 (Alaska Ct.App.1992); People v. Dunoyair, 660 P.2d 890, 894-95 (Colo.1983) (en banc). While the jury instruction could be more clear in separating the two methods of determining amount of damages and describing them as alternatives, it is not so unclear that the jury is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Garcia
...verdict on grounds having nothing to do with a failure of evidence on reliance. See State v. Barreras, 2007–NMCA–067, ¶ 3, 141 N.M. 653, 159 P.3d 1138 (“The question presented by a directed verdict motion is whether there was substantial evidence to support the charge.” (internal quotation ......
-
State v. Coleman
...omitted). We analyze the evidence in light of the jury instructions submitted at trial. State v. Barreras, 2007–NMCA–067, ¶ 3, 141 N.M. 653, 159 P.3d 1138.Aggravated Fleeing {20} The jury was instructed that the essential elements of aggravated fleeing of a law enforcement officer include: ......
-
Lowery v. City of Albuquerque
...the relevant incident and its fair market value immediately after the incident. See State v. Barreras, 2007-NMCA-067, ¶ 7, 159 P.3d 1138, 1141 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007)(citing NMRA, Civ. UJI 13-1813 ("In determining property damages, if any, you may award the reasonable expense of necessary repa......
-
State v. Chester
...the UJI, we analyze the evidence in light of the jury instructions submitted at trial. See State v. Barreras, 2007-NMCA-067, ¶ 3, 141 N.M. 653, 159 P.3d 1138 ("Because this is an issue that arose on [the d]efendant's directed verdict motion, we must analyze the evidence in light of the jury......