State v. Tarin, 34,963

Defendant Raul Tarin was convicted in district court for parking an SUV too close to a water trough in violation of NMSA 1978, § 72-1-8.
A game warden found the SUV parked illegally and shortly thereafter encountered two people near the vehicle, one of whom was Tarin.
During the encounter the game warden testified that Tarin admitted ownership of the SUV and later drove the SUV away after the interaction.
Tarin argued on appeal that the court erroneously admitted the warden’s testimony about Tarin’s out-of-court statement and that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the person who parked the SUV.
Tarin moved to amend his docketing statement to add a claim that the district court impermissibly applied a presumption (citing Bollenbach and Rule 11-302 NMRA).
The Court of Appeals reviewed sufficiency under New Mexico law (viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution) and denied the motion to amend, affirming the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Tarin parked the SUV	Warden’s testimony that Tarin approached the SUV, admitted ownership, and drove it away was sufficient circumstantial evidence to identify Tarin as the parker	There was another person present; because ownership admission and presence are circumstantial, there is reasonable doubt that Tarin (and not his companion) parked the SUV	Affirmed — the three facts (presence, admission of ownership, driving the SUV) provided substantial evidence supporting the court’s finding of guilt; appellate court will not reweigh evidence
Alleged use of a presumption by the district court (motion to amend)	State did not apply any legal presumption; the court reasonably drew an inference from the evidence presented	Court allegedly presumed Tarin parked the SUV based on ownership without proof, shifting burden	Denied — court made permissible inference, not a burden-shifting presumption; issue not viable on appeal

State v. Silva, 144 N.M. 815, 192 P.3d 1192 (N.M. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review: substantial evidence must support every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Baca, 124 N.M. 333, 950 P.2d 776 (N.M. 1997) (definition of "substantial evidence")
State v. Parker, 80 N.M. 551, 458 P.2d 803 (N.M. 1969) (view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution when reviewing sufficiency)
State v. Mora, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789 (N.M. 1997) (appellate court must not reweigh evidence if sufficient evidence supports verdict)
State v. Jones, 88 N.M. 110, 537 P.2d 1006 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975) (distinguishing true presumptions that shift burden from permissible inferences)
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1946) (discusses when presumptions may impermissibly shift burden of proof)