July 1, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Amanda K. Aberle, No. A-1-CA-38367

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court’s discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with
NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in
Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/1/2020 10:22 AM

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, dl
Plaintiff-Appellee, we .
Mark Reynolds
v. NO. A-1-CA-38367
AMANDA K. ABERLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY
Steven Blankinship, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM
for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VARGAS, Judge.
4} Defendant appeals her conviction for tampering with evidence. We issued a

calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a memorandum

in opposition. Not persuaded, we affirm.

2
1 {2} Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support her
2 conviction for tampering with evidence. [MIO 3] When assessing the sufficiency of
3 the evidence, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict,
4 indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor
5 of the verdict.” State v. Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 34, 387 P.3d 230 (internal
6 quotation marks and citation omitted). We disregard all evidence and inferences that
7 support a different result. State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971
8 P.2d 829. “We then determine whether substantial evidence of either a direct or
9 circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
10 with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” State v. Garcia,
11 2016-NMSC-034, ¶ 15, 384 P.3d 1076 (internal quotation marks and citation
12 omitted). “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
13 accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Largo, 2012-NMSC-015, ¶ 30,
14 278 P.3d 532 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
15 {3} Here, the evidence had to show that Defendant hid a urine sample in an effort
16 to avoid apprehension, prosecution, or conviction for violating probation. [RP 116]
17 The State presented evidence that Defendant was observed by a probation officer
18 taking her mandatory urine test; the officer suspected that Defendant brought in
19 someone else’s sample, and placed it in the cup that was provided; the officer testified
20 that she was experienced in overseeing sampling, and believed that Defendant had

3
1 falsified the test because she heard liquid being poured into the cup, and the sample
2 was cold, whereas it should have been warm. [RP 207-08; MIO 1-2] Our calendar
3 notice proposed to hold that the jury could reasonably conclude that Defendant had
4 in fact falsified the test in an effort to elude prosecution.
5 {4} In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant argues that the State’s evidence
6 failed to show that she had the requisite intent to commit tampering, and that there
7 was no proof of an overt act. [MIO 4-6] See State v. Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 14,
8 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515. We disagree. The overt act in this case consisted of
9 Defendant’s concealment and use of urine in a bottle that she brought in as a
10 substitute for a real-time sample, and this could be relied on to establish the requisite
11 mens rea. See generally State v. Motes, 1994-NMSC-115, ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 727, 885
12 P.2d 648 (“Intent is subjective and is almost always inferred from other facts in the
13 case, as it is rarely established by direct evidence.” (internal quotation marks and
14 citation omitted)).
15 {5} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.
16 {6} IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 __________________________________
18 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge

1
WE CONCUR:
Megan P Duffy
MEGAN P. DUFFY, JuUge
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge
4
2 3 4 5