and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to the words or phrase immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others more remote.”). {13} We conclude that the statute’s language is plain and unambiguous. Accordingly, we disagree with Defendant’s interpretation of the statute and hold that the “intent to procure or pass title to a vehicle” is not an essential element of the crime of possession of a stolen vehicle, which is a separate and distinct offense under Section 30-16D-4(A). The jury instructions accurately followed the language of the statute and contained all the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, the jury instructions were appropriate as given. State v. Gunzelman, 1973-NMSC-055, ¶ 26, 85 N.M. 295, 512 P.2d 55 (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by State v.
recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions holding that an indictment that is substantially in the language of the code is sufficient inform and substance holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions holding equivalent language is a paywhenpaid clause