State v. Beal, 1367
| Decision Date | 19 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1367,1367 |
| Citation | 1974 NMCA 54,524 P.2d 198,86 N.M. 335 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dan Curtis BEAL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Convicted of armed robbery contrary to § 40A--16--2, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1972) defendant appeals. He asserts two grounds for reversal. They relate to 'mug shots' and a refused requested instruction. We affirm.
Defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and admitting certain 'mug shots,' from which the defendant was identified, into evidence. The claim is that the photographic identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and this procedure tainted the incourt identification.
The victim was robbed by two young black males. The victim testified that one of the men (defendant) was in the store the evening before the robbery. After the robbery the victim went to police headquarters and looked at more than ten 'mug shots.' No officer was in the room during this time. No identification was made. The following day the victim was shown five 'mug shots.' She identified one of the robbers who is not the defendant in this case. A few days later she was shown five other 'mug shots.' She identified the defendant. The victim testified that at no time did the police in any way say or indicate anything which would be suggestive while she viewed the 'mug shots.'
The record is void of any indication that the viewing of the 'mug shots' was in any way suggestive. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); State v. Jones, 83 N.M. 600, 495 P.2d 380 (Ct.App.1972). Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress and there is no factual basis for the claim that in-court identification was tainted. Instruction
Defendant's refused requested instruction read:
'There is no evidence in the record connecting the defendant with the crime charged except the testimony of Viola M. Vickery; therefore, before you can find the defendant guilty, you must believe the statements of the said Viola M. Vickery to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Instruction should be read as a whole and where other instructions adequately cover the law refusal to give a separate instruction is not error. State v. Rushing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hornbeck
...involving the promissory note was limited to that, then it would not have convicted Defendant of fraud. State v. Beal, 86 N.M. 335, 336, 524 P.2d 198, 199 (Ct.App.1974) (holding that where the given jury instructions adequately cover the law, the "refusal to give a separate instruction is n......
-
State v. Duncan
...(if the subject matter is adequately covered in the instructions, a requested jury instruction is properly refused); State v. Beal, 86 N.M. 335, 524 P.2d 198 (Ct.App.1974) (instructions should be read as a whole, and where other instructions adequately cover the issue, refusal to give a sep......
-
State v. Padilla, 2839
...by the trial court was detailed enough to put the alleged acts of the Montoyas in context with the evidence. See State v. Beal, 86 N.M. 335, 524 P.2d 198 (Ct.App.1974). Out-of-court Detective Richardson, a witness for the state was allowed to testify about certain statements made to him by ......
-
State v. Cramer, 2722
...Refusal of a requested instruction is not error when the matter is adequately covered by the instructions given. State v. Beal, 86 N.M. 335, 524 P.2d 198 (Ct.App.1974). Conduct of a An exhibit informs that the victim was a 66-year-old female suffering from senility. She was testifying at th......