State v. Smith, A-1-CA-35923

Defendant Mason S. Smith was convicted by a jury of receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle (a 2007 Honda CBR motorcycle) and sentenced; he appealed from the district court judgment and suspended sentence.
Owner Tyler Bollinger had allowed Ian Goodyear to test-ride the bike on March 13, 2015; Goodyear did not return the motorcycle.
On March 16, 2015, George Dominguez saw the motorcycle at Defendant’s residence. Bollinger went to Defendant’s home, told Defendant the bike belonged to him and that Goodyear had taken it and not returned it, and asked for it back.
Defendant expressed interest in buying the motorcycle and discussed price, but no sale was completed; Defendant told Bollinger anyone would need a test ride before taking it.
Bollinger testified Defendant then took the motorcycle and did not return it; Defendant testified similarly to some facts but denied taking the bike for a test drive.
On appeal Defendant challenged the denial of his motion for directed verdict, arguing insufficient evidence that he knew or had reason to know the motorcycle was stolen when he possessed it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Defendant knew or had reason to know the motorcycle was stolen when in his possession	The State: Bollinger told Defendant Goodyear had taken the bike and not returned it; Defendant’s refusal to return the bike and statements about buying it permit a jury to infer knowledge or reason to know it was stolen	Smith: Bollinger did not explicitly say the bike was "stolen"; mere ownership claim and negotiation do not establish Defendant’s knowledge that the bike was unlawfully taken	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in State’s favor, a reasonable jury could infer Defendant knew or had reason to know the motorcycle was stolen based on Bollinger’s statement and Defendant’s conduct

State v. Largo, 278 P.3d 532 (N.M. 2012) (articulates sufficiency-of-the-evidence review and inferences supporting a verdict)
State v. Brown, 676 P.2d 253 (N.M. 1984) (a material fact may be proven by inference)
State v. Stefani, 137 P.3d 659 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (jury may draw inferences from facts to support conviction)
Hennessy v. Duryea, 955 P.2d 683 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (in summary-calendar cases the opposing party must clearly point out errors of fact or law)