State v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 25 August 2016
• Docket Number: NO. S–1–SC–35451,S–1–SC–35451
• Citation: 384 P.3d 1076,2016 NMSC 034
• Parties: State of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Petitioner, v. Patricia Garcia, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

384 P.3d 1076

2016 NMSC 034

State of New Mexico, Plaintiff–Petitioner,

v.Patricia Garcia, Defendant–Respondent.

NO. S–1–SC–35451

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Filing Date: August 25, 2016

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Steven H. Johnston, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner.

McGraw and Strickland LLC, Margaret I. Strickland, Las Cruces, NM, for Respondent.

OPINION

NAKAMURA

, Justice.

{1} Patricia Garcia, a fifty-two-year-old teacher, induced Page Kent, an eighty-four-year-old widower, to believe that she was his loving partner and thereby gained access to his bank accounts and depleted over $50,000 of his life's savings. A jury convicted Garcia of Fraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30–16–6 (2006)

, and Computer Access with Intent to Defraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30–45–3 (2006). The Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence to support the convictions. State v. Garcia , 2015–NMCA–094, ¶ 1, 356 P.3d 45, cert. granted , 2015–NMCERT–008, 369 P.3d 369 (No. 35,451, Aug. 26, 2015). The State sought certiorari review only with respect to the fraud conviction. We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the jury's findings that Kent relied on Garcia's misrepresentation and that, because of Garcia's misrepresentation and Kent's reliance, Garcia fraudulently obtained over $20,000. Accordingly, we reinstate the jury's verdict with respect to the fraud conviction, reverse the Court of Appeals's decision regarding the same, and remand to the Court of Appeals to consider the other issues raised by Garcia in her appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

{2} Page Kent retired to Columbus, New Mexico in 1986. In January 2010, Lois, his spouse of 36 years, passed away. At the time of Lois's death, Kent was nearly 84 years old. Lois had handled the family finances. When Lois died, Kent had over $100,000 in his bank accounts. Lois's death left Kent with no relatives in New Mexico. He had also been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease

.

{3} Later in 2010, while at the post office, Kent met Garcia, a fifty-two-year-old school teacher. During this encounter, Kent asked Garcia if she was married. Garcia told Kent that she was not married but that she had had a few husbands and was then currently divorced. On that first day, Garcia also asked Kent for $5,000 for cosmetic breast surgery. He wrote her a check for that amount.

{4} Kent and Garcia formed a close relationship, or so Kent thought. Garcia knew that Kent had recently lost his spouse and that he was vulnerable. She visited Kent for several hours a few times each week. Garcia told Kent that she would take care of him and would take him to his doctor's appointments and to the hospital if needed. Kent came to think of Garcia as his girlfriend, his partner. He had a romantic interest in her. As Kent described it, Garcia was not quite his “lover” because he was in his eighties. Yet, according to Kent, their relationship was “very nice,” they were both “content,” and they “just liked each other.” Kent also represented to others that Garcia was his “girlfriend.”

{5} Garcia knew that Kent thought of her in a loving and trusting way, as a girlfriend or romantic partner. She encouraged it. At one point, late in their relationship, Garcia even proposed marriage to Kent.{6} Garcia, however, did not think of herself as Kent's girlfriend or romantic partner. Nevertheless, she feigned an amicable if not amorous relationship with Kent, and, having gained his trust, Garcia asked Kent if she could use his Wells Fargo bank account. Kent acceded. While Kent neither had a computer nor knew how to operate a computer, at least by October 2010, he had allowed Garcia to transfer his savings to her account through online banking. Later, on December 15, 2010, Kent added Garcia as a joint owner on his checking and savings accounts. Kent added Garcia as a joint owner because, as he thought, it would be easier for Garcia's own “bookkeeping,” and it would be easier for her to replace the money that she had already taken.

{7} Garcia took control of Kent's bank accounts. She engaged in a campaign to transfer and spend his life savings. Garcia routinely transferred funds from Kent's saving account into his checking account, and then transferred funds from his checking account into her checking account. She also habitually used his ATM card. Garcia did not inform Kent how much of his money she regularly withdrew, and Kent did not know how much money Garcia took until he received his bank statement in the mail at the end of each month.

{8} In January 2011, Garcia married Gerardo Marquez. Garcia and Marquez had also cohabitated for some time prior to their marriage and during the period when Garcia was developing a relationship with Kent. Garcia was careful to keep Kent unaware of her marriage to Marquez. During the time she feigned a relationship with Kent, she did not tell Kent that she had married Marquez. Furthermore, Garcia deceived Kent when Kent first met Marquez. This occurred in May 2011, when Marquez, at Garcia's request, traveled to Kent's house to repair Kent's roof. At this meeting, Garcia introduced Marquez to Kent as her “gay friend,” not as her spouse. Until Marquez later informed him, Kent never realized that Garcia had married and was never, in fact, his girlfriend or partner.

{9} At some point in 2011, a representative at Wells Fargo, concerned with the activity on Kent's accounts, made inquiries with Kent regarding his banking activity. The bank's intervention “woke [Kent] up” to the precipitous erosion of his savings, and he asked Garcia to curtail her actions on his accounts. Then, at the bank's instigation, in May and June 2011, Kent opened a new checking and savings account with Wells Fargo and then closed the prior accounts to which he had added Garcia as a joint owner. But, after a while, Garcia convinced Kent to again add her onto his accounts; she told Kent that she would be careful. On October 13, 2011, Kent added Garcia as a beneficiary on his checking and savings accounts. And Garcia continued to deplete Kent's savings.

{10} In late 2011 or early 2012, a representative at the Wells Fargo Elder Abuse Department sent a report to New Mexico Adult Protective Services. The report was referred to a caseworker, Irene Chacón. Chacón contacted Kent and spoke with him about Garcia's activities on his bank accounts. Then, in late January or early February 2012, after Marquez and Garcia had separated, Marquez informed Kent not only that he and Garcia had been married during 2011, but also of Garcia's “suspicious activity” on Kent's bank accounts. Kent was shocked. He later described the fact of Garcia's marriage as “very pertinent.” Shortly after being made aware of Garcia's marriage, Kent suspended contact with her. Then, on February 18, 2012, he removed Garcia as a beneficiary on his bank accounts. On February 21, 2012, Kent submitted an affidavit of online fraud with Wells Fargo. In that affidavit, Kent represented that Garcia had “manipulated” him, and “convinced [him] to trust her....” From the time of their meeting in 2010, until February 2012, Garcia had depleted at least $52,000 from Kent's bank accounts.

{11} On June 20, 2012, the State filed a criminal information against Garcia, alleging one count of Fraud (Over $20,000), a second-degree felony in violation of Section 30–16–6

, and one count of Computer Access with Intent to Defraud or Embezzle (Over $20,000), a second-degree felony in violation of Section 30–45–3. After a two-day trial, a jury convicted Garcia on both counts.

{12} The Sixth Judicial District Court sentenced Garcia to a term of nine years for each count, to run consecutively. The district court then suspended ten years from Garcia's sentence for a total of eight years of imprisonment. The district court also imposed a five-year period of supervised probation and ordered Garcia to pay $53,800 in restitution.

{13} Garcia timely appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed Garcia's convictions. Garcia , 2015–NMCA–094, ¶ 1, 356 P.3d 45

. In a divided opinion, the Court held that the State did not offer sufficient evidence to establish that “Kent relied on [Garcia's] deception about her relationship and marriage status” when he allowed her access to his bank accounts. Id. ¶¶ 14, 26. The Court also held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove “the elements of computer access with intent to defraud.” Id. ¶ 29. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Sutin concluded that the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to support its finding that “Kent's willingness to allow [Garcia] access to his accounts was grounded in Mr. Kent's impression that [Garcia] was his ‘girlfriend’ ” Id. ¶ 44 (Sutin, J., dissenting).

{14} On July 28, 2015, the State petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted, exercising its jurisdiction under Article VI, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution

and NMSA 1978, Section 34–5–14(B) (1972). This Court issued the writ to consider two questions: First, whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining that the element of reliance in a fraud count must be proved by direct and not circumstantial evidence? Second, whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the jury's finding that Kent relied on Garcia's misrepresentations was not supported by sufficient evidence?

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of review

{15} The standard by which an appellate court reviews a jury verdict for sufficiency of the evidence is well-established. “Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” State v. Garcia , 2011–NMSC–003, ¶ 5, 149 N.M. 185, 246 P.3d 1057

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We then determine “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...