State v. Najera
Decision Date | 14 September 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 2667,2667 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ernest A. NAJERA, a/k/a Bobby Cruz, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
One of the charges against defendant was that he possessed burglary tools in violation of § 40A--16--5, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6). The trial court ruled that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The State appealed. We placed the appeal on the summary calendar, proposing summary reversal on the basis of prior New Mexico decisions. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition to summary reversal.
A statute violates due process if it is so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning. 'The vagueness doctrine is based on notice and applies when a potential actor is exposed to criminal sanctions without a fair warning as to the nature of the proscribed activity.' State v. Marchiondo, 85 N.M. 627, 515 P.2d 146 (Ct.App.1973).
Defendant asserts the definition of 'burglary tools' comes within the above-quoted statement of the vagueness test. He states:
Defendant's contention fails to consider the statutory language. Section 40A--16--5, supra, reads:
'Possession of burglary tools consists of having in the person's possession a device or instrumentality designed or commonly used for the commission of burglary and under circumstances evincing an intent to use the same in the commission of burglary.'
In determining the question of vagueness, we consider the statute as a whole. State v. Orzen, 83 N.M. 458, 493 P.2d 768 (Ct.App.1972). The statute gives notice that one is exposed to criminal sanctions if one: (1) possesses an instrumentality or device, (2) the instrumentality or device is designed or commonly used to commit burglary, and (3) the instrumentality or device is possessed under circumstances evincing an intent to use the instrumentality or device in committing burglary. The statute is not void for vagueness; it gives fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Santillanes v. State, 20638
...subject to criminal sanctions for conduct without fair warning as to the nature of the proscribed activity. See State v. Najera, 89 N.M. 522, 522, 554 P.2d 983, 983 (Ct.App.1976).6 The legal doctrine of overbreadth applies when the statute in question has been interpreted as sweeping unnece......
-
State v. Turley, 4354
...Resources v. N.M. Water Quality Cont., 93 N.M. 546, 603 P.2d 285 (1979). The vagueness doctrine is based on notice. State v. Najera, 89 N.M. 522, 554 P.2d 983 (Ct.App.1976). Defendant's contention was not raised in the trial court; we consider it here, for the first time, because the conten......
-
State ex rel. Health and Social Services Dept. v. Natural Father, 3789
...may violate due process if it is so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning. State v. Najera, 89 N.M. 522, 554 P.2d 983 (App.1976). The parents contend that the words "other care or control" in subparagraph 2 and "mental incapacity" in subparagraph 3 ......
-
State v. Benny E., s. 11613
...vague because persons of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at the statute's meaning. See State v. Najera, 89 N.M. 522, 554 P.2d 983 (Ct.App.1976). The underlying principle for the constitutional requirement of definiteness for a criminal statute is that no one shall be held crimi......