State v. Lankford

Decision Date25 July 1978
Docket NumberNo. 11941,11941
Citation1978 NMSC 58,92 N.M. 1,582 P.2d 378
PartiesSTATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Floyd LANKFORD, Respondent.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
OPINION

EASLEY, Justice.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of unlawful taking of a vehicle. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of conviction.

The dispositive issue is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the jury verdict as to the charge that the offense was committed between August 16 and 31, 1976.

The Facts

The criminal information charged the defendant with unlawful taking of a motor vehicle "on or about August 31, 1976." Defendant filed a "Demand for Particulars" and the District Attorney responded with a "Bill of Particulars" stating that the crime was committed sometime between August 16 and 31, 1976.

The automobile in question, a Volkswagen, had been left by the owner, Mrs. Yoeman, at Bowlin's Teepee, twenty miles west of Deming for a period of about six weeks. Darroll Homer testified that he went with the defendant to unlawfully take the automobile "approximately somewhere in August." On being cross-examined as to how he knew the incident occurred in August he stated "because I was there." Homer later stated that the incident "could have happened in August." The manager of Bowlin's testified that the car disappeared from the "very end of August up to the 10th of September." A sheriff's report which was introduced as an exhibit without objection showed that the owner had called the sheriff's office on September 8, 1976, and reported to a deputy sheriff that she had just talked with someone at the Teepee and was informed that the last time the car had been seen was on Saturday, September 4. There was other evidence which showed the taking may have been in September. The trial court gave defendant's requested instruction that required the jury to find that the crime was committed between August 16 and 31, 1976. The jury brought back a guilty verdict.

Opinion of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals by memorandum opinion reversed the conviction, ruling that there was no substantial evidence in the record that the taking of the vehicle occurred within the specified dates. Other holdings of that court are not material hereto.

In determining whether the evidence supports a criminal charge or an essential element thereof, the appeals court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, resolving all conflicts therein and indulging all permissible inferences therefrom in favor of a verdict of conviction. State v. Lucero, 88 N.M. 441, 541 P.2d 430 (1975); State v. Vigil, 87 N.M. 345, 533 P.2d 578 (1975); State v. Parker, 80 N.M. 551, 458 P.2d 803 (Ct.App.1969), Cert. denied, 80 N.M. 607, 458 P.2d 859 (1969). The appellate court does not weigh the evidence and may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. State v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • State v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • June 10, 1993
    ...to draw. Nevertheless, we must resolve those inferences and conflicts in the light most favorable to the judgment. State v. Lankford, 92 N.M. 1, 2, 582 P.2d 378, 379 (1978). "It is for the trier of fact to determine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, including all reasonable infere......
  • State v. Trujillo
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • February 5, 2002
    ...all conflicts therein and indulging all permissible inferences therefrom in favor of the verdict." Id.; see also State v. Lankford, 92 N.M. 1, 2, 582 P.2d 378, 379 (1978). The appellate court has a duty "to determine whether any rational jury could have found each element of the crime to be......
  • 1997 -NMCA- 15, State v. Tywayne H.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • January 29, 1997
    ...wrong door. ¶34 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming the decision of the trial court. See State v. Lankford, 92 N.M. 1, 2, 582 P.2d 378, 379 (1978) (appellate court must view evidence in light most favorable to state after conviction in trial court). I believe that ......
  • State v. Gattis
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • November 26, 1986
    ...the state, resolving all conflicts therein and indulging all permissible inferences therefrom in favor of the verdict. State v. Lankford, 92 N.M. 1, 582 P.2d 378 (1978). This court does not weigh the evidence and may not substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder so long as there i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT