State v. Franco

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rael

    495 P.3d 598 (N.M. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    DISCUSSION {18} In this appeal, Defendant asks us to clarify our holdings in State v. Knight , 2019-NMCA-060, 450 P.3d 462, cert. denied , 2019-NMCERT-009, 2019 WL 11720212 (No. S-1-SC-37832, Sep. 13, 2019), and State v. Franco , 2019-NMCA-057, 450 P.3d 439, cert. denied , 2019-NMCERT-008, 2019 WL 11717170 (No. S-1-SC-37817, Aug. 9, 2019). Specifically, Defendant asks us to hold that Knight and Franco do not allow for convictions based on "volitional conduct that inadvertently results in the possession, distribution, or manufacture of [SECM]."

  2. State v. Knight

    2019 NMCA 60 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 8 times

    Defendant’s argument relies on the analysis found in State v. Granillo , 2016-NMCA-094, 384 P.3d 1121. We recently rejected the same argument for a different subsection of this statute in State v. Franco , 2019-NMCA-057, ¶ 13, 450 P.3d 439, 2019 WL 2559725 (No. A-1-CA-35470, June 13, 2019). {13} In that case, as a matter of first impression, we addressed "the intent necessary to sustain a conviction for intentional distribution of child pornography under Section 30-6A-3(B)."

  3. State v. Johnson

    No. A-1-CA-39266 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2023)

    {¶8} "[G]eneral criminal intent" means '"purposely do[ing] an act which the law declares to be a crime.'" State v. Franco, 2019-NMCA-057, ¶ 16, 450 P.3d 439 (quoting UJI 14-141 NMRA). "[G]eneral criminal intent is satisfied if the [s]tate can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that

  4. State v. Apodaca

    No. A-1-CA-36409 (N.M. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2019)

    {16} Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State v. Franco, 2019-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. A-1-CA-35470, June 13, 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[J]ury instructions become the law of the case against which the sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured."

  5. State v. Morrill

    No. A-1-CA-36490 (N.M. Ct. App. Jul. 24, 2019)

    Defendant argues, in the alternative, that the intent evidence was insufficient even if we conclude that the mens rea is general intent. {18} We recently rejected a nearly identical argument for a heightened mens rea under Section 30-6A-3(B) in State v. Franco, 2019-NMCA-___, ¶ 13, ___ P.3d ___ (No. A-1-CA-35470, June 13, 2019). Like Defendant, the Franco defendant also relied on Granillo in urging this Court to determine that general criminal intent was insufficient under Section 30-6A-3(B).