Nevertheless, on this premise, Defendant urges us to extend application of the “single-larceny doctrine” to the offense of possession of a stolen vehicle under Section 30-16D-4(A). The single-larceny doctrine provides that “the stealing of property from different owners at the same time and the same place constitutes only one larceny.” State v. Brown, 1992-NMCA-028, ¶ 6, 113 N.M. 631, 830 P.2d 183. “[T]he doctrine is a canon of construction used when the Legislature’s intent regarding multiple punishments is ambiguous.” State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, ¶ 43, 136 N.M. 309, 98 P.3d 699. {21} We decline to extend the single-larceny doctrine to this case. Even though our courts have recognized the validity of the single-larceny doctrine, see Brown, 1992-NMCA-028, ¶¶ 6, 13 (<HOLDING>), we see no indication that the doctrine
recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented recognizing doctrine recognizing that new mexico courts will enforce a contractual choiceoflaw provision unless to do so would violate fundamental principle of justice or deeprooted traditions of new mexico holding that defendants could be convicted of bribery in new mexico even though the actual transaction occurred in texas since defendants attempted to obstruct justice in new mexico recognizing the validity of the singlelarceny doctrine in new mexico