State v. Buchanan
Decision Date | 14 March 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 7856,7856 |
Citation | 1966 NMSC 45,412 P.2d 565,76 N.M. 141 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby J. BUCHANAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
W. J. Schnedar, Roswell, for appellant.
Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.
Defendant was charged with larceny of a diamond ring belonging to Jane Byers taken from the possession of the Chaves County sheriff's office. He appeals from judgment and sentence following his conviction by a jury.
It is first asserted that the trial court should have directed a verdict on the ground that the state's testimony was unworthy of belief and was not the substantial evidence necessary to sustain the conviction. It is conceded that there is testimony in the record which would be substantial evidence if it were worthy of belief, but defendant claims that the testimony was thoroughly impeached and that the evidence therefore failed to establish the necessary elements of the crime charged.
At the trial, defendant attempted to impeach the testimony of Jane Byers, first, by her inconsistent statements at the preliminary hearing with regard to when and to whom she gave custody of the ring while she was confined in the Chaves County jail, and, secondly, on the basis of her mental incompetency. Similarly, defendant attempted to impeach the testimony of Andrew Needham by showing felony convictions and inconsistent statements. It was Needham who testified that the defendant had admitted to him the taking of the ring belonging to Mrs. Byers from the desk of the sheriff's office.
However, this claim of error is without merit, because this court will not substitute its opinion for that of the jury. It was early determined in New Mexico that admissible testimony, however untruthful, if it is untruthful, is proper evidence to go to the jury under proper instructions of the court, Territory v. Baca, 1903, 11 N.M. 559, 71 P. 460, and that judgment of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony was the function of the jury. State v. Nuttall, 1947, 51 N.M. 196, 181 P.2d 808; State .v Lucero, 1913, 17 N.M. 484, 131 P. 491; Territory v. Baca, supra; Territory v. O'Donnell, 1887, 4 N.M. (Gild.) 196, 12 P. 743. In the Baca case, supra, the court said:
* * *'
The defendant next argues that his confession was improperly admitted for the reason that the corpus delicti was not proved by independent evidence. The 'confession' to which he refers is defendant's statement to the witness Needham, who testified that defendant said he (the defendant) had picked up the ring from a desk in the sheriff's office after 'they forgot to put it back in the property sack.' The state contends that this statement was an admission rather than a confession, and that defendant's argument therefore is to no avail.
Without deciding whether the same rules apply to material admissions as to confessions, cf. Opper v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101, 45 A.L.R.2d 1308; State v. Gleitsmann, 1960, 62 N.J.Super. 15, 161 A.2d 747, it is clear that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the extrajudicial statement of the accused, Opper v. United States, supra. The corpus delicti must, at least in part, be established by some independent evidence, State v. La Rue, 1960, 67 N.M. 149, 353 P.2d 367; State v. Carter, 1954, 58 N.W. 713, 275 P.2d 847; State v. Dena, 1923, 28 N.M. 479, 214 P. 583; which, of course, may be circumstantial, State v. Sakariason, 1915, 21 N.M. 207, 153 P. 1034; State v. Chaves, 367; State v. Carter, 1954, 58 N.M. 713, 1932, 36 N.M. 57, 7 P.2d 943; However a statement, when established as trust-worthy, may properly be considered together with independent or corroborative evidence as proof that the crime charged was committed, see State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 414 P.2d 512, March 7, 1966.
In this case, there was evidence that the ring was owned by Mrs. Byers and was relinquished by her to the jailer when she was confined in the Chaves County jail. Defendant was then a trusty at the jail. There is evidence that defendant had the ring, identified as that belonging to Mrs. Byers, in his possession subsequent to that time, and that the defendant sold the ring to one Thorne in Chaves County.
The corpus delicti of larceny is constituted of two elements: that the property was lost by the owner, and that it was lost by a felonious taking. State v. Cason, 1917, 23 N.M. 77...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quinn v. Young
...[item] from [the owner],” and tacitly placing at issue the identity of the owner in the first instance); see also State v. Buchanan, 76 N.M. 141, 412 P.2d 565, 567 (1966) (explaining that “[t]he corpus delicti of larceny is constituted of two elements: that the property was lost by the owne......
-
State v. Manlove, 87
...Determining the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is the function of the jury. State v. Buchanan, 76 N.M. 141, 412 P.2d 565 (1966). Considering the evidence in the light of these principles, which we must, we are of the opinion that the verdicts are support......
-
State v. Wilson
...tends to establish the trustworthiness of the extrajudicial confession, a conviction will be sustained.”) with State v. Buchanan, 76 N.M. 141, 143, 412 P.2d 565, 566–67 (1966) (“[A] statement, when established as trustworthy, may properly be considered together with independent or corrobora......
-
State v. Aull
...Griffin. State v. Miller, 76 N.M. 62, 412 P.2d 240 (1966); State v. Flores, 76 N.M. 134, 412 P.2d 560 (1966); State v. Buchanan, 76 N.M. 141, 412 P.2d 565 (1966); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 414 P.2d 512 (1966); State v. James, 76 N.M. 376, 415 P.2d 350 (1966); State v. Sandoval, 76 N.M. 5......