State v. Pacheco-Marez, 36,130

Defendant Cynthia Pacheco-Marez was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine, concealing identity, and possession of an open container.
Police found a small plastic baggie containing a white substance next to Defendant as she sat on a curb.
Officer Renteria observed Defendant with two open bottles of liquor as she exited a U-Haul vehicle.
Defendant provided a false name, false date of birth, and false social security number to the officer; the officer later discovered her true identity through investigation.
Defendant appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence (claiming another passenger could have placed the baggie on the ground and denying concealment/open-container). The Court of Appeals proposed affirming and, after considering Defendant’s response, affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession of methamphetamine	The State argued the baggie found next to Defendant supported possession	Defendant argued a passenger could have removed the baggie and placed it by her, creating reasonable doubt	Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to verdict, jury could infer possession; appellate court will not reweigh evidence
Sufficiency of evidence for concealing identity	The State presented that Defendant gave false identifying information and was later identified	Defendant argued there was reasonable doubt about concealment despite false info	Affirmed — evidence supported conviction for concealing identity
Sufficiency of evidence for open container	The State relied on officer’s observation of two open liquor bottles when Defendant exited the vehicle	Defendant argued reasonable doubt that she possessed the open containers	Affirmed — officer’s observation provided sufficient evidence
Standard of review on sufficiency challenges	The State relied on established appellate standards to sustain verdicts	Defendant asked the court to overturn verdicts based on alternative hypotheses	Court applied standard of viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict and refused to substitute its judgment for jury’s

State v. Sutphin, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (N.M. 1988) (appellate courts must not reweigh evidence or substitute judgment for the factfinder)
State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (the jury may reject a defendant’s version of events)
State v. McGhee, 103 N.M. 100, 703 P.2d 877 (N.M. 1985) (weight and inferences from evidence are for the trier of fact)
State v. Cunningham, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 (N.M. 2000) (on sufficiency review, all reasonable inferences are indulged in favor of the verdict)