State v. Bell
| Citation | 1972 NMCA 101,500 P.2d 418,84 N.M. 133 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 880,880 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe BELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Bell was convicted and sentenced on two counts of assault upon two police officers with intent to commit a violent felony, to wit: murder or mayhem, contrary to § 40A--3--3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6). Bell appeals.
We affirm.
About 20 Minutes after midnight of August 19, 1971, a police officer saw a car being driven by Bell weaving down the street. The police officer sought to stop Bell to see what the problem was. A chase began with other police officers participating. On Highway 70, detective Wells with officer Axtell as a passenger, driving on the left hand side of the eastbound road, pulled up and got even with Bell, both driving at 110 mph. The emergency lights and siren of the police car were activated. Axtell shined a flashlight on himself as Bell looked over so Bell would know they were police officers. Axtell motioned Bell to pull over. Bell took both hands off the steering wheel and motioned Axtell away. Axtell pulled his service revolver with his right hand and motioned Bell to pull over again. Bell crossed over the center line to the left, bounced against the police car twice, and tne made a sharp turn to the left, hitting the police car forcing it off the highway and causing it to slide sideways in the median 250 to 300 feet. The police driver regained control of the car and continued the chase. Subsequently, Bell stopped the car, got out, ran and hid. He was found by the police and arrested.
Bell's only claim of error is that there is no substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict which was that Bell was guilty of assault with intent to commit a violent felony, to wit: murder or mayhem.
To support this claim of error, Bell contends that since the trial court in its instructions failed to define the word 'murder,' the state's case rests on whether it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Bell assaulted the police officers with intent to commit a felony, to wit: mayhem. The trial court had defined the word 'mayhem' in its instructions. Bell did not tender instructions on the definition of the word 'murder' or object to the failure of the trial court to define the word.
The trial court instructed the jury in the language of the statute. This is sufficient. State v. Lopez, 80 N.M. 599, 458 P.2d 851 (Ct.App.1969). If Bell desired any amplification or definition of words, he should have presented a request therefor. Tarvestad v. United States, 418 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir. 1969).
Under § 21--1--1(51)(2)(h), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4), on failure of the trial court to instruct on any issue, a correct written instruction must be tendered before the jury is instructed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Padilla, 2839
...State v. Gonzales, 86 N.M. 556, 525 P.2d 916 (Ct.App.1974); State v. Puga, 85 N.M. 204, 510 P.2d 1075 (Ct.App.1973); State v. Bell, 84 N.M. 133, 500 P.2d 418 (Ct.App.1972). Defendant further contends that since the Use Note states the instruction must be given and since we are bound to foll......
-
State v. Kraul
...actions was a severely disputed factual question. See State v. Dosier, 88 N.M. 32, 536 P.2d 1088 (Ct.App.1975); State v. Bell, 84 N.M. 133, 500 P.2d 418 (Ct.App.1972). Both parties submitted a requested instruction on when a police officer may approach a person to investigate possible crimi......
-
State v. Gonzales
... ... State v. Bell,84 N.M. 133, 500 P.2d 418 (Ct.App.1972) ... The judgment and sentences are affirmed ... It is so ordered ... HENDLEY, J., concurs ... [86 N.M. 559] ... LOPEZ, J., specially concurs ... LOPEZ, Judge (specially ... ...
-
State v. Jones
... ... This question is raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, the error, if any, must be jurisdictional to be reviewable. State v. Gunzelman, 85 N.M. 295, 512 P.2d 55 decided July 6, 1973 ... The state relies upon our decision in State v. Bell, 84 N.M. 133, 500 P.2d 418 (Ct.App.1972), where we stated: ... 'The trial court instructed the jury in the language of the statute. This is sufficient. State v. Lopez, 80 N.M. 599, 458 P.2d 851 (Ct.App.1969). If Bell desired any amplification or definition of [85 N.M. 428] ... words, he should ... ...