State v. Nieto, 35,439

Defendant (Jose Nieto) was convicted by a jury of intimidation/threat of a witness and violation of a protective order; judgment and sentence were entered by the Bernalillo County District Court.
The State presented evidence that Defendant knowingly orchestrated an encounter with his ex‑wife at a residence in violation of a protection order and threatened/intimidated her to deter her from testifying about a prior violation.
Defendant testified he did not see his ex‑wife’s vehicle, did not know she was at the residence, was called there, asked whether she wanted him to leave (she left before he could), and denied making threats.
On appeal Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and abandoned a pretrial evidentiary motion he had raised (a motion in limine).
The Court of Appeals reviewed the record viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, resolving conflicts and reasonable inferences for the prosecution, and concluded the evidence was legally sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for intimidation/threat of a witness	The State argued the jury could reasonably infer Defendant threatened/intimidated his ex‑wife to prevent her testimony, based on the encounter and victim testimony	Nieto argued the evidence equally supported his account (no knowledge, no threat), so conviction rests on speculation	Affirmed: circumstantial evidence and credibility determinations supported the verdict; appellate court will not reweigh evidence
Sufficiency of evidence for violation of order of protection	The State argued Defendant knowingly and intentionally violated the protection order by orchestrating the encounter	Nieto argued he did not know she was present and therefore did not knowingly violate the order	Affirmed: sufficient evidence for the jury to infer knowing violation; credibility for jury to determine
Pretrial evidentiary motion (motion in limine)	N/A (State proceeded on proofs at trial)	Nieto originally raised but subsequently abandoned this challenge on appeal	Not addressed—appellate challenge expressly abandoned by Defendant

State v. Cunningham, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 (applying standard for viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict)
State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (court will disregard evidence supporting a different result and defers to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Salgado, 126 N.M. 691, 974 P.2d 661 (definition of substantial evidence)
State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (sufficiency standard recognizing circumstantial evidence may support conviction)
State v. Salas, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (factfinder resolves testimonial conflicts and credibility)