State v. Ashcraft, 35,798

Defendant Lisa Ashcraft was convicted in Bernalillo County of forgery and embezzlement; she appealed the convictions.
Defendant challenged the district court’s jury instructions on forgery and the denial of her speedy-trial dismissal motion.
The contested forgery instruction tracked UJI 14-1643 and required proof that defendant acted with intent to “injure, deceive or cheat.”
The forgery statute defines the culpable mental state as intent to “injure or defraud”; the parties disputed whether the jury instruction improperly added “deceive” and “cheat.”
Defendant also argued a speedy-trial violation under the Barker v. Wingo balancing test, disputing the district court’s assessment of case complexity, length and reasons for delay, and alleged discovery-related delay.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition to affirm; after the defendant’s memorandum in opposition the court affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instruction improperly added elements to forgery by including “deceive” and “cheat”	State: instruction correctly follows UJI and defines “defraud” as intent to deceive or cheat	Ashcraft: terms “deceive” and “cheat” are not in the statutory text and thus broaden the offense	Held: Affirmed — instruction properly explained statutory “defraud” element as intent to deceive or cheat per UJI and precedent
Whether the district court violated defendant’s speedy-trial right	State: district court properly applied Barker factors, found intermediate complexity, and weighed delay neutrally overall	Ashcraft: case was simple, delay became presumptively prejudicial earlier, and delays were caused by state discovery failures	Held: Affirmed — district court’s complexity finding (intermediate) and balancing were reasonable; defendant failed to show particularized prejudice

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (sets four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
State v. Lucero, 147 N.M. 747, 228 P.3d 1167 (N.M. 2010) (standard of review for jury instructions)
State v. Curry, 132 N.M. 602, 52 P.3d 974 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (fraudulent intent means intent to cheat or deceive)
State v. Green, 116 N.M. 273, 861 P.2d 954 (N.M. 1993) (UJI requires instructing jury that intent to defraud means intent to deceive or cheat)
State v. Montoya, 150 N.M. 415, 259 P.3d 820 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (deference to district court on complexity and speedy-trial factual findings)
State v. Aragon, 127 N.M. 393, 981 P.2d 1211 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (presumption of correctness for trial-court rulings)
State v. Samora, 307 P.3d 328 (N.M. 2013) (defendant must show particularized prejudice when other Barker factors do not strongly favor defendant)