State v. Herron, 35,829

Defendant James Herron convicted by jury of three counts of failing to disclose facts/change of circumstances to obtain public assistance in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-40-1.
Prosecution relied primarily on testimony of Jessica Gomez, an HSD investigator, and HSD application records; Gomez investigated Defendant’s reported past residences and disputed his claims.
Defendant asserted he was transient/borderline-homeless, frequently changed addresses, and that he truthfully disclosed his living situation; he also claimed functional illiteracy and that his mother completed applications.
At trial the court admitted six HSD application exhibits over defense hearsay/foundation objections and gave jury instructions that tracked the statute’s language closely.
On appeal Defendant argued (A) State improperly shifted burden of proof in closing; (B) jury instructions were misleading by not separating a "purpose" element; (C) verdicts on Counts 1 and 3 were inconsistent; (D) district court erred in evidentiary rulings admitting HSD records.
Court of Appeals considered Defendant’s memorandum in opposition but, emphasizing Defendant’s failure to present a complete record, affirmed convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
A. Burden-shifting in closing	State contends closing arguments did not shift burden; evidence supported convictions	State improperly shifted burden to Defendant to prove residence/provide proof, violating due process	Court held no improper burden shift; evidence sufficed and jury could reject Defendant’s testimony
B. Jury instructions wording	Instructions tracked statutory language and correctly stated law	Instruction was misleading; "purpose" element should be listed separately	Court held given instruction correct and included "purposeful" language; proffered instruction unnecessary
C. Allegedly inconsistent verdicts	Verdicts are consistent with evidence and instructions	Counts 1 and 3 are inconsistent	Court held verdicts not fatally inconsistent (relied on prior calendar analysis)
D. Admission of HSD records	Records admissible as business records and party admissions; proper foundation established	Records inadmissible hearsay; Defendant illiterate so forms may reflect mother’s statements	Court affirmed admission; Defendant failed to supply complete record to overcome presumption of correctness

State v. Herrera, 315 P.3d 343 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (due process requires proof of every element)
State v. Hanson, 348 P.3d 1070 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (argument of counsel not evidence)
State v. Aragon, 981 P.2d 1211 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (presumption of correctness for district court rulings)
State v. Rojo, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1998) (jury may reject defendant’s version of facts)
State v. Traeger, 29 P.3d 518 (N.M. 2001) (distinguishing separate elements where appropriate)
State v. Griffin, 866 P.2d 1156 (N.M. 1993) (deference to district court on credibility)
State v. Salas, 986 P.2d 482 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (appellate deference to district court’s credibility determinations)