State v. Ledbetter, 472 P.3d 1287

Property owner Thomas Wulf’s vacant residence (house, detached garage, guest house) was discovered in October 2013 with fixtures and appliances missing and structural damage from copper-stripping and removed electrical/AC components.
Handyman Sonny Candelaria discovered the damage; police collected ~16 items of evidence; 12 items submitted for DNA testing (cigarette butts, soda cans, bottles, human waste).
Defendant Kimberly Ledbetter’s DNA matched three cigarette butts and three soda cans found in the master bedroom, southwest bedroom, and laundry room. Some samples contained mixed DNA.
Ledbetter told police she was not in Roswell between April and October 2013, but officers testified they had contact with her on Sept. 22 and Oct. 1, 2013.
No stolen items were recovered or linked to Ledbetter; investigators could not fix when the damage/theft occurred within the broad charging window (Apr. 1–Oct. 7, 2013).
A jury convicted Ledbetter of residential burglary, larceny, and criminal damage to property; the court of appeals reversed for insufficient evidence and remanded to vacate convictions.

Issue	State's Argument	Ledbetter's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for residential burglary (intent to commit theft or damage on entry)	DNA and presence near damaged areas plus alleged false alibi permit inference of guilty intent	DNA only proves presence at some time; no direct link to theft/damage or timing; inference is speculative	Reversed — insufficient evidence of requisite intent; presence/DNA alone cannot sustain burglary conviction
Sufficiency of evidence for larceny (taking with intent to permanently deprive)	Missing items and DNA near damaged areas support inference Ledbetter took or aided theft	No possession of stolen property, no tools, no eyewitness, broad time window; state asks jury to speculate	Reversed — insufficient proof Ledbetter took items or had intent to permanently deprive
Sufficiency of evidence for criminal damage to property (intentional damage)	DNA near labor-intensive damage supports inference of involvement	No evidence Ledbetter damaged property or encouraged others; mere presence insufficient	Reversed — insufficient evidence of intentional damage or aiding/abetting damage
Whether district court fundamentally erred by giving an incomplete accessory-liability instruction	State maintains instruction sufficient (or harmless)	Ledbetter contends instruction incomplete and prejudicial	Not reached on the merits — convictions reversed for insufficiency, making instructional claim moot

State v. Dowling, 257 P.3d 930 (N.M. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Vigil, 226 P.3d 636 (N.M. 2010) (convictions must not rest on mere speculation)
State v. Flores, 226 P.3d 641 (N.M. 2010) (circumstantial evidence can support intent when it permits a reasonable inference)
State v. Jennings, 691 P.2d 882 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984) (attendant circumstances may permit a reasonable inference of intent; distinguished on facts)
State v. Paris, 414 P.2d 512 (N.M. 1966) (corpus delicti of larceny requires more than loss, access, and unexplained absence)
State v. Silva, 192 P.3d 1192 (N.M. 2008) (rejecting convictions based on speculative inferences when key evidence is missing)
State v. Vargas, 368 P.3d 1232 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (mere presence at scene, without more, is insufficient to infer required criminal intent)