State v. Crouch, 7867
| Decision Date | 08 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 7867,7867 |
| Citation | 407 P.2d 671,1965 NMSC 131,75 N.M. 533 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John R. CROUCH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Bean & Snead, Roswell, for appellant.
Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., James V. Noble, Carl P. Dunifon, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.
Defendant John R. Crouch appeals from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of three counts of forgery. The trial court sentenced defendant on each of the three counts and ordered that the sentences run consecutively.
Two confessed accomplices, Ellsworth T. Tope and Paul (Buddy) Dickman, testified on behalf of the State and it is admitted that the testimony of Dickman in general corroborated the testimony of Tope.
The witness Tope testified that he, the defendant and Dickman had been employed by Freezer Sales Company in Roswell; that on August 30, 1963, the defendant and Tope drove from El Paso to Roswell; that right after midnight the defendant entered the offices of Freezer Sales Company and took a checkbook and check protector from the company's office while he stood guard; that on August 31, 1963, he, the defendant and Dickman came to Roswell together, stopped near Roswell and defendant, using the check protector and checks of Freezer Sales Company, wrote out three checks made payable to the defendant, Tope and Dickman.
Both Tope and Dickman testified that the three of them then went to the C. R. Anthony Store in Roswell and each cashed the check with his name shown as payee. They then drove outside of town where the defendant wrote out other 'protected' checks. Accomplice Tope cashed another check at a Safeway store in Roswell and accomplice Dickman and the defendant did likewise shortly thereafter. The accomplices further testified that Tope cashed another of the checks at the Furr's Store on Saturday, August 31, 1963, and Dickman and the defendant each cashed a check at the H & J Farmer's Market. All three then returned to El Paso, Texas.
The manager of the Safeway Store testified that he was acquainted with the defendant and that he approved the cashing of the forged check for him on August 31, 1963. He said that all three had come to his office to have the checks approved. Tope denied that he had seen the manager of the Safeway Store when he cashed a check there, claiming to have cashed it at the counter.
An employee of the H & J Farmer's Market testified that he had cashed the forged check for the defendant but was uncertain of the date. Another employee was unable to set the exact date that the check had been received.
The wife of the defendant testified that she, the defendant and their children left El Paso, Texas, around August 23rd and went to San Antonio, and that the defendant was in San Antonio, Texas, on August 29, 30 and 31, 1963. This was in conflict with accomplice Dickman's testimony that he had seen her at defendant's house on Friday, August 30th.
Defendant's mother testified to defendant's presence in her home in San Antonio, Texas, the latter part of August, 1963, but she could not remember the day or the dates. The said that she gave the defendant some personal property of hers so that he could sell it and raise money.
The defendant testified that he left El Paso on August 23rd and did not return to Roswell until the officers brought him back on the charge. He denied any participation in the crime. He produced documents showing his presence in San Antonio on August 28 and 29, 1963, but did not show any for the day of the crime. Attacking the credibility of defendant, the State elicited admission of convictions of previous crimes.
Mrs. Paul M. Dickman, mother of Paul (Buddy) Dickman, testified that the defendant had stayed in her home in Roswell, New Mexico, on the night of August 29, 1963.
Defendant-appellant's first contention is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction. In substantiation of this contention he calls the court's attention to several discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses.
The first discrepancy is that the manager of the Safeway Store said that all three men had come to his office to get their checks approved for cashing. Accomplice Tope testified that he had cashed his check at the counter and had not seen the manager. Defendant claims this shows that the manager may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Manlove, 87
...favorable to the State. All conflicts are resolved and all permissible inferences are indulged in favor of the verdict. State v. Crouch, 75 N.M. 533, 407 P.2d 671 (1965). Determining the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is the function of the jury. State v......
-
Smith v. State
...therefrom furnish substantial support. Nothing more is required. State v. Lopez, 79 N.M. 282, 442 P.2d 594 (1968); State v. Crouch, 75 N.M. 533, 407 P.2d 671 (1965). We would add a word concerning appellant's argument that finding No. 6 somehow prejudiced her. The finding 'The defense was n......
-
State v. McAfee
...most favorable to the State, resolving conflicts and indulging all permissible inferences in favor of the verdict. State v. Crouch, 75 N.M. 533, 407 P.2d 671 (1965). So viewed, reasonable minds might accept the evidence of Mr. Chandler and Mr. Robison as adequate to support a conclusion tha......
-
State v. Weber
...the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed. State v. Mesecher, 74 N.M. 510, 395 P.2d 233; State v. Crouch, 75 N.M. 533, 407 P.2d 671. The second point relied on for reversal is that the court erred in refusing to give instructions on appellant's theory of the......