State v. Craig

CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico
Citation372 P.2d 128,70 N.M. 176,1962 NMSC 72
Docket NumberNo. 6902,6902
PartiesSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. H. W. CRAIG, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date05 June 1962

Page 128

372 P.2d 128
70 N.M. 176
STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
H. W. CRAIG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 6902.
Supreme Court of New Mexico.
June 5, 1962.

[70 NM 176] Robert W. Ward, Lovington, for defendant-appellant.

Earl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Carl P. Dunifon and Mark C. Reno, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.

CHAVEZ, Justice.

[70 NM 177] Appellant, H. W. Craig, was convicted by a jury of selling property which he did not own and which he had not been given the right to sell in violation of Sec. 40-21-40, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. From the judgment and sentence he prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant, under a written contract, was purchasing a certain lot in Hobbs, New Mexico, upon which there was a frame house. Appellant had intended to construct a woodwork shop on the lot and attach it to the house. After purchasing the lot and frame building, appellant was unable to obtain a building permit to add to or extend the frame building and was told by the building inspector that he would have to construct a fireproof building, such as a block concrete building, because the premises were in a fire zone. Appellant then consulted counsel and was advised that, since he intended to build a block building on the lot, if he would make the monthly payments provided for in the contract, he had the right to sell the frame building. Appellant sold the frame building for $2000 and thereafter was charged with the sale of the frame house without right in violation of Sec. 40-21-40, supra.

We might add that the lot in question is owned by Elizabeth Manley, a widow, and Inza Jane Manley Adams. Cecil P. Stracener entered into a contract to purchase the lot from the ladies Manley and Adams, and thereafter Stracener moved the frame house onto the lot. Subsequently, Stracener and wife entered into a written contract for the sale of the lot to appellant. Before selling and moving the frame house off the

Page 129

premises, appellant contacted Mrs. Adams, who consented to appellant's selling the frame house.

The only question presented is whether the trial court committed error in refusing to grant appellant's requested instruction to the effect that intent had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before appellant could be convicted.

The trial court gave the following instructions:

'5. The Statute of the State of New Mexico upon which prosecution as to Count Two is based, except as to punishment, reads as follows:

'Any person who sells or who offers to knowingly sell any property of which he is not the owner, or which he has not been given the right to sell shall be deemed guilty of a felony and shall be punished as provided by law.

'6. If you believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, in Lea County, New Mexico, on or about the 22nd day of June, 1957, or at any other time within three years next prior to April 21, 1959, did wilfully and knowingly sell property of which he was not the owner, or which he had not been given the right to sell, then you will find him guilty as charged in Count Two of the [70 NM 178] Information; otherwise, you will acquit him.

* * *

* * *

'9. KNOWINGLY means with knowledge of the nature of the act done.

'10. WILFULLY means the doing of an act knowingly and intentionally and when it is not the result of accident or misfortune.

* * *

* * *

'12. Before you would be warranted in returning a verdict of guilty in this case as to Count Two, the State must prove to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt the following material allegations of the Information:

'(a) That the defendant, H. W. Craig, did unlawfully and feloniously sell property of which he was not the owner, or which he had not been given the right to sell.

'(b) That said act of selling was done wilfully and knowingly, as those terms are defined elsewhere in these instructions.

'(c) That said act of selling occurred in Lea County, New Mexico, on the 22nd day of June, 1957, or upon some other date within three years next preceding the filing of the Information in this case, which was filed on April 21, 1959.

'So, in this case, if the State has proved to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of the material allegations of the Information outlined above, then you should find the defendant guilty as charged; but on the other hand, if you have a reasonable doubt as to the truth of any one or more or all of the material allegations above, then you should acquit the defendant of the charge contained in the Information.'

Section 40-21-40, supra, which appellant was charged with violating, provides:

'40-21-40. Sale of property without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Reese v. State, 16658
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • September 1, 1987
    ...the criminal intent of an accused is to be regarded as essential for conviction is a matter of statutory construction, State v. Craig, 70 N.M. 176, 372 P.2d 128 (1962), in light of the common law rule that existence of a criminal intent is essential. Shedoudy, 45 N.M. at 524, 118 P.2d at 28......
  • State v. Vickery, 1076
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • June 20, 1973
    ...in two decisions, the New Mexico Supreme Court has treated 'knowingly' as a concept separate from that of criminal intent. State v. Craig, 70 N.M. 176, 372 P.2d 128 (1962); State v. Blevins, 40 N.M. 367, 60 P.2d 208 (1936); compare State v. Borunda, 83 N.M. 563, 494 P.2d 976 Assuming here, ......
  • State v. Gonzalez, 23,711.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • February 7, 2005
    ...unless it is clear from the statute that the legislature intended to omit the mens rea element." (emphasis omitted)); State v. Craig, 70 N.M. 176, 180, 372 P.2d 128, 130 (1962) (same); State v. Shedoudy, 45 N.M. 516, 524, 118 P.2d 280, 285 (1941) ("Generally ... when an act is prohibited an......
  • State v. Lucero, 1342
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • January 8, 1975
    ...element of every crime unless the Legislature expressly declares otherwise. Our most cited case on this matter is State v. Craig, 70 N.M. 176, 372 P.2d 128 'Whether a criminal intent is to be regarded as essential is a matter of construction. (Citations Omitted.) 'Generally speaking, when a......
  • 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