State v. Blacklock.

Decision Date13 September 1917
Docket NumberNo. 1977a.,1977a.
Citation167 P. 714,23 N.M. 251
PartiesSTATEv.BLACKLOCK.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court.

It is a matter of discretion with the trial court whether or not to strike out, on motion, evidence which has been admitted without objection.

A crime is not committed if the mind of the person doing the unlawful act is innocent, and therefore it is stated that a guilty intent must be proved. A guilty intent, however, may be inferred from the act, and such inference is one to be drawn by the jury. and not an implication of law to be applied by the court.

Appeal from District Court, San Juan County; Abbott, Judge.

Foster Blacklock was convicted of unlawfully injuring a building, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Whether the evidence received without objection will be afterwards excluded on motion lies largely within the court's discretion.

The appellant, Foster Blacklock, was charged in a justice of the peace court of San Juan county with having on October 15, 1915, unlawfully injured a building belonging to the Farmington Fair Association. The defendant offered no evidence, and on conviction appealed to the district court, where he was again convicted on trial before a jury. From the judgment and sentence of the district court he has prosecuted this appeal.

It appears that in 1904 the Farmington Fair Association purchased a 20-acre tract of land. The appellant, Blacklock, owned a tract of land immediately south of this tract, which was purchased by the Farmington Fair Association. In 1913 the Association, not being able to meet the balance due Blacklock, reconveyed to him the tract of land purchased from him, and on the day charged appellant sent an employé to take down the grand stand and move the lumber therein to Blacklock's home.

There is a conflict in the evidence as to the location of the grand stand, viz., as to whether it was located on the first property purchased by the Fair Association or on the property subsequently purchased from Blacklock.

J. M. Palmer and Walter M. Danburg, both of Farmington, for appellant.

H. S. Bowman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HANNA, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

The first question argued by appellant in his brief is as to the ownership of the building, it being contended that ownership can only be proven by legal and competent evidence, and that the only evidence of ownership of the building which appellant is charged with having injured was the evidence of the witness Griffin, who testified that he was the president of the Farmington Fair Association, and that such association was the owner of the 20-acre tract of land upon which the grand stand was located. No doubt this testimony of the witness was not the best evidence, but no objection was interposed at the time of its introduction. The appellant first attempted to raise his objection by a motion to direct a verdict at the conclusion of the state's case in chief. This was too late. If the evidence was objectionable at the time of its introduction, this objection should have been called to the attention of the trial court, in order that a ruling might have been had upon the objection at that time.

In the case of State v. McKnight, 21 N. M. 14, at 29, 153 Pac. 76, at 79, this court said:

“In order that the trial of a cause of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Gonzalez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • February 7, 2005
    ... ... Since at least 1917, we have followed the common law that where an act is prohibited and punishable as a crime, it is construed as also requiring the existence of a criminal intent. State v. Blacklock, 23 N.M. 251, 254, 167 P. 714, 715 (1917) ("As a general rule, where an act is prohibited and made punishable by statute, the statute is to be construed in the light of the common law and the existence of a criminal intent is essential." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). See, e.g., ... ...
  • State v. Shedoudy.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1941
    ... ... Blacklock, 23 N.M. 251, 167 P. 714; Smith v. State, 223 Ala. 346, 136 So. 270; [118 P.2d 286] State v. Hefflin, 338 Mo. 236, 89 S.W.2d 938, 103 A.L.R. 1301; Youngs Rubber Co. v. Lee & Co., 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 103. But the legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission criminal, without regard ... ...
  • State v. Jackson.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1943
    ... ... We have many times held that these general objections may not be relied upon. And we have never favored a relaxation of this [143 P.2d 879] salutary rule. See State v. McKnight, 21 N.M. 14, 153 P. 76; State v. Blacklock, 23 N.M. 251, 167 P. 714; Henderson v. Dreyfus, 26 N.M. 541, 191 P. 442; Nikolich v. Slovenska, etc., Jednota, 33 N.M. 64, 260 P. 849; Priestley v. Law, 33 N.M. 176, 262 P. 931. And a case may even be “made out by incompetent evidence, if received without objection”, we have held. Nikolich v ... ...
  • State v. Craig
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1962
    ... ... 'Generally speaking, when an act is prohibited and made punishable by statute only, the statute is to be construed in the light of the common law and the existence of a criminal intent is to be regarded as essential, although the terms of the statute do not require it. State v. Blacklock, 23 N.M. 251, 167 P. 714; Smith v. State, 223 Ala. 346, 136 So. 270; State v. Hefflin, 338 Mo. 236, 89 S.W.2d 938, 103 A.L.R. 1301; Youngs Rubber Corp. v. C. I. Lee & Co., 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 103. But the legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission criminal, without regard to ... ...
  • 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