Opinion ID: 891688
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Improbability of Michelle Martinez's Testimony as a Matter of Law

Text: {71} Defendant argues that Michelle Martinez's uncorroborated testimony is inherently improbable as a matter of law. See State v. Trujillo, 60 N.M. 277, 291, 291 P.2d 315, 319 (1955) (an appellate court will not uphold a judgment or verdict based upon evidence inherently improbable (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Boyd, 84 N.M. 290, 292, 502 P.2d 315, 317 (Ct.App.1972) (The rule is that testimony is not inherently improbable unless what is claimed to have occurred could not in fact have occurred.). {72} Notwithstanding Defendant's position, any potential inconsistencies in Martinez's testimony or questions regarding her veracity do not justify reversal, since weighing the evidence, like credibility determinations, falls within the exclusive province of the jury. Orgain, 115 N.M. at 126, 847 P.2d at 1380. Furthermore, even assuming Martinez's testimony was improbable, the record contains ample evidence that independently corroborates Martinez's version of events.